I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...

... but here goes:

Quote from: Benoist;646236A role playing game involves actual role playing, that is, a sense of identification with your character, which then becomes a field of much debate (here and elsewhere) between narrative mechanics, author versus character stance, etc, and what actually constitutes an RPG versus "not an RPG", story game and otherwise.

• Talisman
• Junta
• Diplomacy
• Tales of the Arabian Nights

Quote from: Imperator;646315I agree that Internet is the bes thing for us. It is also true, too, that opinions in Internet are just a tiny subset of the hobby and thus, taking them as general opinions is a terrible idea, as shown here:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4739-scott-pilgrim/

Being vocal about something on Internet does not equal to spending money on it.

As usual, I mostly agree and partially disagree . The theory from that link is mostly flawed (it only got right the Serenity, which sadly proves that Firefly fans are indeed a very vocal, but minority), because, well, since I had been in the saloon when Jessie James was shot:

1) All the other films than Serenity had this "geek hype" whipped up by PR department. Snakes on a Plane were in fact so notoriously marketed as a "film so bad it's gonna be good", that at some point while browsing the Internet at the time, I was afraid to open the fridge. So de facto this article ought to cover more the problem of Marketing Hype != Reality.

2) The films themselves were rather mediocre (I'm biased on Serenity to say it was good, and Kickass was also an interesting experiment, at least in comic version), and failed to meet the expectations of media hype they produced. Or, as often happens, they were based on misconceptions about what the "geeks" wanted - such as Cera being the titular Scott Pilgrim, because Internet laughing at his expense was mistaken for real popularity.

3) Indie was running on an awesome licence, and the more decent comparison would be with The Last Crusade, which got 474 million dollars. Crystal skull also costed 185 millions, while Last Crusade only about 50 - so basically, Crystal skull made about 4.5 dollar for every 1 invested in production (add to that marketing expenses EDIT: sorry, I did not count the worldwide profits for Crystal skull), while Last Crusade made 9.5 dollars for every dollar invested (add marketing expenses as well, of course). When you do all that really simple math & fact check, that took me five minutes (and no Imperator, I am not picking a "fight" with you for clearance - just Crakced ) it does turn out a bit that perhaps listening to "geeks" a bit about what'd they want from their legacy film, might've been a good idea. Not to mention adjusting for inflation. And I doubt that Crystal Skull toys sold that well, since the film was really aimed at the people who grew up with Indy, rather than the new generation.

Edit: 3.5) In fact, as I sacrificed another minute of my time - Kickass costed 30 million, brought 90 in box office worldwide. So it earned 3 dollars for every one invested - only 1.5 less than Indiana Jones, and you just can't compare the IPs.

But I do agree that:

4) Marketing to geeks may not be the smartest idea. Then again, we're really as gullible as any other group, just not a very big one.

And perhaps most importantly I do agree with you that vocal does not equal right. And that's not just a problem of the Internet really, but the reality itself - we can see what vocal, well organised minorities everywhere are doing, and most often it is not something that a majority would call "right". But as we are silent, they triumph - which is why it is always better to speak, even if on the Internet.

To summarise - I agree that an author needs to have his vision. But he ought not to distance himself too far from the audience and it's voice, or both him and his vision will be too obscured.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;646346I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...

... but here goes:

• Talisman
• Junta
• Diplomacy
• Tales of the Arabian Nights

I can assure you that I do not identify even slight as much with my character in Talisman, as I do with my characters in an RPG. Talisman is for crushing your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. In Diplomacy and Junta, while you may wish to have some gentleman agreement to role - play those games, it is all that - a gentleman's agreement. There is no tailoring in the rules to adjust for a cooperative game, where being the character is an important part of the activity.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;645755Apparently their entire initial marketing campaign?

Honestly I don't remember it.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;646262Dungeon! isn't coop.

I'm referring to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games. Castle Ravenloft. The Wrath of Ashardalon. The Legend of Drizzt. Very popular (much more than Dungeon!). And they're co-op.

The line between boardgames and RPGs isn't clear at all these days. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Quote from: Haffrung;646367I'm referring to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games. Castle Ravenloft. The Wrath of Ashardalon. The Legend of Drizzt. Very popular (much more than Dungeon!). And they're co-op.

The line between boardgames and RPGs isn't clear at all these days. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.

Since I play a lot of board games, I couldn't disagree more. While some BGs may emulate RPG elements and storytelling elements (such as Arkham Horror for example), the feeling of playing against the board is vastly, vastly different to playing an RPG, and I truly rarely see players bothering to try and RP elements as we play - if we wanted that, we'd just, well...play an RPG?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;646346I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...

... but here goes:

• Talisman
• Junta
• Diplomacy
• Tales of the Arabian Nights

Playing Descent in campaign mode has most of the hallmarks of a focused dungeon-crawling RPG. The biggest difference being the adversarial GM who has his options defined by the rules.

Quote from: Rincewind1;646369Since I play a lot of board games, I couldn't disagree more. While some BGs may emulate RPG elements and storytelling elements (such as Arkham Horror for example), the feeling of playing against the board is vastly, vastly different to playing an RPG, and I truly rarely see players bothering to try and RP elements as we play - if we wanted that, we'd just, well...play an RPG?

Playing a bidding game is vastly different from playing a tile-laying game. Playing a deck-building game is vastly different from  playing a hex and counter wargame. And yet boardgames designers are cheerfully exploring the gaps between these formats and devising new hybrid systems all of the time. This cross-polinization has fostered a golden age in boardgaming.

Personally, I also play boardgames for entirely different reasons and in a different way than I play RPGs. However, a great many people do play RPGs mainly as a tactical combat games. And I get he impression a lot of people never speak in character, or roleplay much at all. And on the other hand, some people do play boardgames like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights primarily to generate enjoyable narratives. Cooperative games like Sentinels of the Multiverse (superheroes) are sizzling hot right now. Mansions of Madness even features a 'keeper' who runs all of the environmental encounters and foes. There's clearly a big demand for RPG-like boardgames.   I expect more of these narrative games will feature ongoing campaign modes, and devise ways to grow and customize characters.  And I don't really understand why this would make people angry or contemptuous.

Quote from: Haffrung;646380Playing a bidding game is vastly different from playing a tile-laying game. Playing a deck-building game is vastly different from  playing a hex and counter wargame. And yet boardgames designers are cheerfully exploring the gaps between these formats and devising new hybrid systems all of the time. This cross-polinization has fostered a golden age in boardgaming.

Personally, I also play boardgames for entirely different reasons and in a different way than I play RPGs. However, a great many people do play RPGs mainly as a tactical combat games. And I get he impression a lot of people never speak in character, or roleplay much at all. And on the other hand, some people do play boardgames like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights primarily to generate enjoyable narratives. Cooperative games like Sentinels of the Multiverse (superheroes) are sizzling hot right now. Mansions of Madness even features a 'keeper' who runs all of the environmental encounters and foes. There's clearly a big demand for RPG-like boardgames.   I expect more of these narrative games will feature ongoing campaign modes, and devise ways to grow and customize characters.  And I don't really understand why this would make people angry or contemptuous.

I agree on these, though as I said, there is a somewhat vast difference between RPG - like board game and just the RPG. Part of it is because, even against the board/keeper, there's still an inherit friends against foe relationship at the table, which should not exist at the RPG table.

I'll give an example from the Mansion of Madness I played - I can not remember exactly what it was about, so pardon if I am a bit wrong/unclear. There is a Cultist's Robe item there, that adds to evasion against cultists and makes them not attack you, or something. But according to the ruleset and the Keeper, that bonus would not apply when trying to evade out of the room (full of Cultists, mind you) or something like that. So in other words -despite having a brilliant disguise, the cultists still attack me as I try to leave the room. On a board game I can let it stand, because we're playing a game that's based on the opposition still. If we were at the RPG table, I'd call bull. It might've not been exactly this, as I said again, but I do remember it was a situation which was indeed reasonable by the rules, but a complete idiocy if logic would be applied to it -and in RPGs, part of GMs role is to apply such logic.

Quote from: Rincewind1;646383I agree on these, though as I said, there is a somewhat vast difference between RPG - like board game and just the RPG. Part of it is because, even against the board/keeper, there's still an inherit friends against foe relationship at the table, which should not exist at the RPG table.

I'll give an example from the Mansion of Madness I played - I can not remember exactly what it was about, so pardon if I am a bit wrong/unclear. There is a Cultist's Robe item there, that adds to evasion against cultists and makes them not attack you, or something. But according to the ruleset and the Keeper, that bonus would not apply when trying to evade out of the room (full of Cultists, mind you) or something like that. So in other words -despite having a brilliant disguise, the cultists still attack me as I try to leave the room. On a board game I can let it stand, because we're playing a game that's based on the opposition still. If we were at the RPG table, I'd call bull. It might've not been exactly this, as I said again, but I do remember it was a situation which was indeed reasonable by the rules, but a complete idiocy if logic would be applied to it -and in RPGs, part of GMs role is to apply such logic.

I share your belief that rulings not rules is one of the hallmarks of RPGs. However, given how divisive the subject is in the RPG world, that's not the case for a lot of RPGers. And who's to say someone won't design an innovative boardgame in which logical rulings by a referee, or by consensus, will be incorporated into the game.

A few years ago I took part in a play-by-forum game of an Colonial-era miniatures system (British versus Mahdi). Each of the 12 or so players, who represented particular named officers, described how we disposed trained our units, how we scouted the terrain, even engaged in regimental politics, all in-character. All die-rolling was conducted by the referee, who fed back the consequences of our decisions in forum updates. For game aids, we used only one historical (and inaccurate) map of the region. Was that a roleplaying game, or a boardgame conducted via text?

Quote from: Haffrung;646403I share your belief that rulings not rules is one of the hallmarks of RPGs. However, given how divisive the subject is in the RPG world, that's not the case for a lot of RPGers. And who's to say someone won't design an innovative boardgame in which logical rulings by a referee, or by consensus, will be incorporated into the game.

Fair enough, and it's really happening anyway - I mean in practice it's quite often that when someone forgets a rule, we don't bother checking if all voices speak the same version. Only when there's a conflict of interest the rules of a boardgame are checked - and that's why I don't see that happening with a "typical" boardgame, at least not for a degree that RPGs are, because the conflict of interest (aka me winning vs you winning, or us winning fairly against the board vs us just winning) happens more often. Perhaps, however indeed - who knows.

QuoteA few years ago I took part in a play-by-forum game of an Colonial-era miniatures system (British versus Mahdi). Each of the 12 or so players, who represented particular named officers, described how we disposed trained our units, how we scouted the terrain, even engaged in regimental politics, all in-character. All die-rolling was conducted by the referee, who fed back the consequences of our decisions in forum updates. For game aids, we used only one historical (and inaccurate) map of the region. Was that a roleplaying game, or a boardgame conducted via text?

An interesting example, because I, for one, long had flirted with an idea of a campaign in a sandbox setting, where there are two groups of players, which both represent people iin control of one of the opposing kingdoms, who are a part of an empire about to dissolve in a civil war. So we would need to adhere more to agreed rules, while still keeping the logics of an RPG, so to speak. And indeed, it's one of those gray zone things, where an answer may lie in splitting hairs, but what'd be the point of that? If you had fun, it means it was good, and if everyone was indeed sticking to their guns with their characters (aka - if you had a lazy, timid officer, you hadn't suddenly turned into a brilliant man because you were getting your ass kicked), then I'd say mission accomplished either way. But if I were to split a hair, I'd say an RPG game with heavy wargame elements, or vice - versa.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;646346I am not sure if I really want to open this can of worms ...

Well, I don't particularly want to pixel-bitch about this or that hybrid so yeah, I'm moving on.

Quote from: Haffrung;646367I'm referring to the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games. Castle Ravenloft. The Wrath of Ashardalon. The Legend of Drizzt. Very popular (much more than Dungeon!). And they're co-op.

The line between boardgames and RPGs isn't clear at all these days. And I don't see why that's a bad thing.

That's a very bad thing.

I got into RPGs because, like the Red Box said, loosely quoted "there is no gameboard. The action takes place in your imagination."

Huge difference.

People who think boardgames and RPGs are close . . . man, I could never play with those people.

Quote from: 1989;646417That's a very bad thing.

I got into RPGs because, like the Red Box said, loosely quoted "there is no gameboard. The action takes place in your imagination."

Huge difference.

People who think boardgames and RPGs are close . . . man, I could never play with those people.

Well, they are all tabletop games...

But no worries 1989 - I'm not recruiting at the moment anyway, so even if you'd live in my location, it'd not really be your decision.

Quote from: Rincewind1;646350To summarise - I agree that an author needs to have his vision. But he ought not to distance himself too far from the audience and it's voice, or both him and his vision will be too obscured.

:hatsoff:

That is what I meant to say. And that is what I consider the weakest point of an open playtesting process.

Quote from: 1989;646417That's a very bad thing.

I got into RPGs because, like the Red Box said, loosely quoted "there is no gameboard. The action takes place in your imagination."

Huge difference.

People who think boardgames and RPGs are close . . . man, I could never play with those people.

I suppose I don't understand the anxiety about the market making products for people who like different things than I do. It doesn't mean someone is going to take away the things I do like.