Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994257Mister Tragically Hip is trying to derail yet another thread.  Don't let him.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1652[/ATTACH]

Amusing that you think I 'derail' threads by daring to (mildly) poke fun at the assumptions of the regulars. Such a sensitive lot.

Guess you'd prefer if everyone just jerked each other off here like  at DF and TBP?

Here being 'hip' is to like pre-3.0 D&D only, recommend Gurps for anything and everything, hate the ambigiously defined 'storygamers' who are out to destroy our games and have an irrationally big Hate On for the dreaded SJWs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994003By the way, there are PLENTY of skirmish level wargames where you play one and only one character, and they are unambiguously wargames.  For instance, among my collection I have at least two gladitorial combat games where you play a single character, and the game has no provisions for absolutely anything outside of combat -- not even naming gladiators.  They are purely about two poor chumps hacking each other to death.

Yeah, and this thread is, in retrospect, me yelling "why did nobody tell me skirmish wargames exist", so these are really interesting from and RPG point of view. I got some experience with them, bought a couple new ones, and yeah, the ones I've got aren't RPGs, but can easily be developed into such:).
Which is good enough for me. And I can easily see myself playing them. After all, I don't have to only play RPGs, right;)? These are going to be fun diversions.

Quote from: Voros;994170So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

Actually, most people said wargames aren't RPGs, and there's that;).

Quote from: Voros;994302[ATTACH=CONFIG]1652[/ATTACH]

Amusing that you think I 'derail' threads by daring to (mildly) poke fun at the assumptions of the regulars. Such a sensitive lot.

Guess you'd prefer if everyone just jerked each other off here like  at DF and TBP?

Here being 'hip' is to like pre-3.0 D&D only, recommend Gurps for anything and everything, hate the ambigiously defined 'storygamers' who are out to destroy our games and have an irrationally big Hate On for the dreaded SJWs.

So, I'm only like one quarter hip:D? Or less? I like only pre-2e D&D, but I like lots of clones, and I like 13th Age and Fantasy Craft!

Quote from: AsenRG;994311Yeah, and this thread is, in retrospect, me yelling "why did nobody tell me skirmish wargames exist", so these are really interesting from and RPG point of view. I got some experience with them, bought a couple new ones, and yeah, the ones I've got aren't RPGs, but can easily be developed into such:).

I also dig skirmish games, the 2e-D&D rules by Douglas Niles turned me on to them. Any recommendations? Or perhaps add them to the Wargames thread in Othergames that needs some love.

QuoteActually, most people said wargames aren't RPGs, and there's that;).

I noticed, I was just surprised to see anyone claim otherwise considering how strict some are about defining RPGs. And my post was in jest.

QuoteSo, I'm only like one quarter hip:D? Or less? I like only pre-2e D&D, but I like lots of clones, and I like 13th Age and Fantasy Craft!

I prefer B/X and BECMI myself but like elements of 1e, 2e and 5e as well. Not even familiar enough with 3e or 4e to really comment on them but I don't really 'hate' a system I happen to dislike.

Quote from: Voros;994170So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994257Mister Tragically Hip is trying to derail yet another thread.  Don't let him.

Quote from: Voros;994302Amusing that you think I 'derail' threads by daring to (mildly) poke fun at the assumptions of the regulars. Such a sensitive lot.
...
Here being 'hip' is to like pre-3.0 D&D only, recommend Gurps for anything and everything, hate the ambigiously defined 'storygamers' who are out to destroy our games and have an irrationally big Hate On for the dreaded SJWs.

Agree in theory on the irrational fear of storygames (although that does not mean that the are RPG necessarily, that depends on whether on not things on a spectrum with unclear boundaries can ever truly be separable). There are a few GURPS die-hards, but just a few (and very few people can muster up enough anti-GURPs bile to counter that). The SJW panic seems to have been blessedly swept into the politics threads for the time being.

However, I would not pat yourself on the back for "daring" to speak truth to power or anything. You got through a convoluted thread of people vaguely disagreeing-but-not-really about what makes something a game and whether this hobby which evolved from the wargaming hobby can truly have a distinct boundary... and interjected a random 'but-what-about-MY-pet-cause?'.
That's not brave, that's random.

I appreciate that you do not, as some who come on this board to shake up the status quo, use your outsider status as an excuse to bash those things loved by those you feel have wronged you (while somehow maintaining a self-image of victim). However, taking a thread about where the boundary between wargames and RPGs exists and trying to shoehorn in your favorite victimized subgroup is roughly the same as the guy who finds out that they are allergic to wheat and tries to turn every thread on a cooking forum into a discussion about that.

That, y'know,  and the fact that the whole 'I'm amused by you guys. Since you're acknowledging my antics, I must be getting under your skin, you're must be so sensitive' routine was stale in '02, and we all know better by now and see it for the rhetorical costume that it is.

I agree that this is a very partisan board in very many ways. And it could definitely use some people on the opposite sides of most of the issues (who were brave enough to speak up) to challenge assumption and generally improve the overall rigor of the debates. Groupthink and universal agreement are the harbingers of intellectual laziness. I just don't see what injecting 'but what about issue X?' into a relatively unrelated thread actually does to further any meaningful debate.

Guess I should have put one of these on my original post.

Next time I'll make sure to include more Nerdpenises in my posts so everyone doesn't feel the need to take them so seriously.

So much for Gronan's wish that I not derail the thread!

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

I'm down with #1, that seems like a no brainer.  On #2, I think that might be true some of the time.  But I know sometimes my group jokes that we are at the table to roll some dice and have the GM tell us some shit.  I guess you could roughly define the "win condition" as have fun, but that feels a bit too fluffy.

Quote from: Voros;994315I also dig skirmish games, the 2e-D&D rules by Douglas Niles turned me on to them. Any recommendations? Or perhaps add them to the Wargames thread in Othergames that needs some love.

There's a nice group on FacepalmBook named "Solitaire Wargames" which is full of mini-reviews and pictures of solitaire wargames people like.

Quote from: Voros;994315I also dig skirmish games, the 2e-D&D rules by Douglas Niles turned me on to them. Any recommendations? Or perhaps add them to the Wargames thread in Othergames that needs some love.

Well, I've played two so far, and own maybe one more that I haven't read yet, all by Two-Hour Wargames (and am in the process of considering a few more). Don't you think it's a bit early for me to give recommendations:)?
I can only say I like the approach of Two-Hour Wargames to martial arts/boxing combat. Spot an opportunity, position yourself relative to the enemy, attack, deal damage, with or without special effects along the way (depending mostly on how you position yourself). Makes total sense to me, frankly;).

QuoteI noticed, I was just surprised to see anyone claim otherwise considering how strict some are about defining RPGs. And my post was in jest.

The Jest-O-Meter was broken, I think.

QuoteI prefer B/X and BECMI myself but like elements of 1e, 2e and 5e as well. Not even familiar enough with 3e or 4e to really comment on them but I don't really 'hate' a system I happen to dislike.

Well, other than popularizing the rollX+/-1keepX method of dealing with bonuses/penalties, which I've been familiar with for a decade, I don't know what makes 5e "everyone's second favourite edition" (other than "it's the current edition", of course). But that might be just me;).
 

Quote from: Skarg;994571There's a nice group on FacepalmBook named "Solitaire Wargames" which is full of mini-reviews and pictures of solitaire wargames people like.

I like the name FacepalmBook:D!
Are all skirmish games solitaire? Seriously asking, so far the overlap I've seen is 100%, but I kinda realize that three games don't make for an in-depth research;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;994590Are all skirmish games solitaire? Seriously asking, so far the overlap I've seen is 100%, but I kinda realize that three games don't make for an in-depth research;)!

No, I think most skirmish games are not solitaire, though almost anything can be played solitaire if someone wants to (...).

Skirmish itself isn't a very consistent term. Some people use it to mean games (or miniatures games) with a fairly small number of units/figures and a fairly small map. Others may mean the subject of the scenarios is actually about skirmishes. Others mean each unit represents one person. ...

Quote from: Dumarest;989377Q: What's the difference between an RPG and a wargame, again?

A: I don't really care as long as I'm enjoying them. Somebody told me Dawn Patrol was a war game and not an RPG, yet amazingly it had no effect whatsoever  on my enjoyment.

Dawn Patrol is another good example, as is Carwars. Both can easy be played as a straight wargame fly / drive around and shoot stuff or fleshed out in play and be very RPG like. Even with the later expanded RPG rules Carwars is a rather weak RPG, but we managed to have a lot of fun playing several long running campaigns that sure felt like an RPG to me. I only have a passing familiarity with Dawn Patrol but understand it is very much the same kind of thing, with some playing it as single combats and others running extensive ongoing campaigns.

Also agree with part two, I'm far more worried about whether I'm having fun, than labeling games, but I do think it is an interesting question. Since RPGs are really nothing more than formalized rules for "lets pretend" I doubt there will be a satisfying definitive answer.

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

I'm going to disagree with that. I've played wargames where the defined "win" conditions can be vague or at least debatable and RPGs where the "win" conditions were fairly well spelled out by the GM (destroy the widget or the world will be devoured by darkness (the players lose).

I would agree that wargames do tend to spell out "win" conditions, and RPGs don't. I don't like always and nevers, as the only thing you can count on is there are always exceptions and you can never list all of them.


On the wargame end I think it is worth pointing out that even with real world battles, win / lose is often not clear.

Quote from: Skarg;994599No, I think most skirmish games are not solitaire, though almost anything can be played solitaire if someone wants to (...).

Skirmish itself isn't a very consistent term. Some people use it to mean games (or miniatures games) with a fairly small number of units/figures and a fairly small map. Others may mean the subject of the scenarios is actually about skirmishes. Others mean each unit represents one person. ...

So what you're telling me is that it's the same terminology mess that we have in RPGs, right;)?

(Also, thank you for the answer. But it is so similar to the discussions what is and isn't an RPG, I couldn't avoid a smile!)

For me an RPG is a game in which you can choose any course of action you want but you don't get to choose if that action succeeds.

This excludes wargames, board games and CRPGs in that those games have a set list of actions you can take while in RPGs the sky is the limit, it also excludes improv acting and a lot of story games that either let you choose the result of your actions or so abstract your choices that your ability to choose to try to do whatever you want becomes meaningless.

You could make a wargame try to be like an RPG; you can make a storygame try to be like an RPG. But they'll both kind of suck at it.

Quote from: Toadmaster;994632Dawn Patrol is another good example, as is Carwars. Both can easy be played as a straight wargame fly / drive around and shoot stuff or fleshed out in play and be very RPG like. Even with the later expanded RPG rules Carwars is a rather weak RPG, but we managed to have a lot of fun playing several long running campaigns that sure felt like an RPG to me. I only have a passing familiarity with Dawn Patrol but understand it is very much the same kind of thing, with some playing it as single combats and others running extensive ongoing campaigns.

(One of, or I think the) very first world books for GURPS was Autoduel, for roleplaying in the Car Wars "universe". Or is that what you meant by "the later expanded RPG rules"?)