Quote from: Imperator;425856Dude, I was telling that in good faith. It is my honest opinion.

My perception, as an external observer is that not only there are profound differences regarding your conceptions of what is an RPG, but also a lot of personal stuff which I perceive as straight aversion. Seriously. It does't matter who started.

Fair enough, then, my apologies.

Quote from: BWA;425824You say that direct experience isn't required to form opinions, and that is certainly true in some contexts.

Here's a big part of the problem:  That isn't what I said.

StormBringer --

Okay, Juul didn't get us anywhere, but that's okay; I think we both agree that he only wanted to be talking about videogames, anyway, so his definition amounts to special pleading. Let's move on to the Grasshopper's definition of a game, from the book by Suits I mentioned earlier (by the way, the Boardgame Remix Kit is quite clever).

The Grasshopper is a lot of fun to read; it's written as Socratic dialogue layered with ludic parables. But the core of the book is the Grasshopper's definition of a game:

Quote from: The Grasshopper, p. 34My conclusion is that to play a game is to engage in an activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favour of less efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity.

He elaborates the "elements of game-playing" (p. 35) as comprising (1) the ends of the game (i.e., the goal or objective of the players), (2) the means of play (i.e., the instruments, implements, or playing pieces), (3) the rules of the game (delineating permissible and impermissible actions or moves), and (4) what he calls a "lusory" [game-like, playful] attitude.

Quote from: The Grasshopper, p. 35, 38-39My task will be to persuade you that what I have called the lusory attitude is the element which unites the other elements into a single formula which successfully states the necessary and sufficient conditions for any activity to be an instance of game playing. . . . The attitude of the game player must be an element of game playing because of that curious state of affairs wherein one adopts rules which require one to employ worse rather than better means for reaching an end. . . . Foot racers do not refrain from cutting across the infield because the infield holds dangers for them, as would be the case if, for example, infields were frequently sown with land mines. Cutting across the infield is shunned solely because there is a rule against it. . . . Aside from bureaucratic practice, in anything but a game the gratuitous introduction of unnecessary obstacles to the achievement of an end is regarded as a decidedly irrational thing to do, whereas in games it appears to be absolutely an essential thing to do.

So, for Suits (speaking through the Grasshopper), a game is an activity where one adopts less efficient means for achieving a particular objective just in order to be playing that game. If the objective is to put a ball into a hole in the middle of a grassy field, the most efficient method would be to walk up to the hole and drop the ball in by hand, rather than standing hundreds of yards away and driving the ball toward the hole with a golf club--but if you did that, you wouldn't be playing golf. If you had a set of chessmen and a chessboard, the most efficient means of setting up the pieces such that one of the kings was in checkmate would be to physically place the pieces in such a position, without actually starting the game, alternating moves, and so forth. But again, if you did that you wouldn't be playing chess. In other words, to adopt a lusory attitude is to treat an activity as a game, and adopt rules that limit the efficient achievement of a particular end-state (the "prelusory objective," Suits calls it) simply for the sake of doing so.

It seems simple enough to apply all this to Fiasco. The prelusory objective is the creation of a Coen Bros.-like story of ambitious losers with poor impulse control. The most efficient means of doing so would appear to be to sit down (possibly with your brother) and write one. But in order to turn it into a game, one adopts less efficient means as specified by the rules: a "playset" specifying the fictional elements you must manipulate, rules for who can say what when to contribute to the fiction, and rules for determining the general "valence" or direction of the consequences suffered by characters. The lusory attitude binds those procedures together and turns it into a game.

Suits even has something to say about role-playing! While the character "Skepticus" in the book wants to differentiate between goal-oriented games like chess and golf and baseball on the one hand and role-oriented games like Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, and House on the other, the Grasshopper isn't convinced. Rather, he sees make-believe as a kind of "open game," defined as "a system of reciprocally enabling moves whose purpose is the continued operation of a system." A traditional D&D campaign, similarly, strikes me as an open game as well. The difference between Fiasco and D&D, then, isn't that one is a game and one isn't, nor even that one is an RPG and one isn't. Rather, it's that one is a closed game, structured so as to reach a specific end-state (the presentation of end-game montages) and the other is an open game, designed so that it is in principle capable of continuing indefinitely.

I'll finish with one last quote from Suits, which tickled me:

Quote from: The Grasshopper, pp. 46-47'Checkmate,' says the cheat.
'Nonsense,' his opponent rejoins. 'Checkmate is the condition when you have immobilized my king. But you have not immobilized my king. Behold: I am moving it about in the air.'
'That isn't a move in chess, you idiot!' cries the enraged cheat.
'What rubbish. A move is a move.'
'Don't be absurd. How could I possibly counter such a "move"?'
'Why don't you try to grab me by the wrist?'
'How can you be so stupid? Do you want to play chess or do you want to arm wrestle?'
'Arm wrestle, now that you mention it. Chess bores me to death.'
'Damn you!' sobs the cheat. 'You're nothing but a spoilsport!'
'Bang in the gold,' replies the spoilsport.

Quote from: StormBringer;425961Here's a big part of the problem:  That isn't what I said.

Fair enough! You said:

Quote from: StormBringer;425961Because direct experience isn't the only form of valid knowledge, these arguments always fall back on the same tired strategy of desperately howling that there is no possible understanding of a subject without extensive direct contact.

My apologies if my paraphrase did not do your thoughts justice.

I absolutely agree with you that direct experience is NOT the only form of valid knowledge. Done and done.

And when discussing RPGs, I definitely agree that "extensive" knowledge is not required. (I bought and read 4E and played it twice, and I think that gives me the right to express an informed opinion on the game.)

But to reiterate my question: If you haven't played Fiasco, and you haven't read it, then what experience are you drawing on to form your opinions?

I think that is a valid question, and the answer will at least inform how others can read and understand your comments about the game.

Quote from: BWA;426075Fair enough! You said:

My apologies if my paraphrase did not do your thoughts justice.

I absolutely agree with you that direct experience is NOT the only form of valid knowledge. Done and done.

And when discussing RPGs, I definitely agree that "extensive" knowledge is not required. (I bought and read 4E and played it twice, and I think that gives me the right to express an informed opinion on the game.)

I think that puts us on the same page, so no harm no foul.

QuoteBut to reiterate my question: If you haven't played Fiasco, and you haven't read it, then what experience are you drawing on to form your opinions?

I think that is a valid question, and the answer will at least inform how others can read and understand your comments about the game.

Well... shit.  Right when I was about to triumphantly pull out my copy and start quoting chapter and verse, I find that it is no longer on my computer.  I must have ditched it during a vigorous back up at some point.  I have been digging around for several days now, and it is just not turning up.

So, honestly, it was a lot from memory.  As I said, I was going to pull it up and use some stuff, but no longer.  The sample pages refreshed my memory a bit, so I was going with that until someone pointed out that I was diametrically wrong about the rules (ie, the 'montage'  is played before the Tilt or something equally incorrect).

To clarify my agreement with your previous point, I would say that experience in play is pretty important to forming an opinion, but only insofar as an anecdotal data point.  That doesn't automatically invalidate the data, mind you; however, it is rare that a gamer is introspective enough to notice that 'fixing' or 'ignoring' a rule still means there is a problem with that rule.  There are whole threads at tBP where fixing or ignoring a rule is supposed to 'invalidate' the criticism that there is a problem to begin with.

Which isn't what you are doing, clearly.  But allow me return to your example of the successful outcome you mentioned for a moment.  I maintain that outcome is contrary to the 'spirit' of Fiasco, but obviously not wholly impossible (and mitigated by the other players' ambitions being thwarted in the process, I assume).  I didn't want to sound like that outcome was absolutely barred by the guidelines, just pointing out that it was highly unusual.  

So, part of my argument regarding the role-playing potential lies in the fact that the outcome is largely pre-determined, for the most part.  According to play reports and the tables listed in the playsets, I would assert that your successful outcome was something you achieved by working against the rules, to a certain degree.  In that sense, the ability to actually play a role is diminished.  The degree of which can be reasonably debated; I am not saying the role-playing is obliterated, but rather severely restricted.

I am not saying "ur playin it rong lol!" or anything, simply that your example is going against the grain according to the guidelines, the playsets, and other published play reports that I have seen, hence my request for additional reports that may contradict that view.

As far as being a game, I will have to catch up with Bill to address that point.    I would rather separate that part off into a sub-conversation, if you don't mind, and sincerely invite you to join that part of the thread instead of both of us falling into the trap of ever longer posts addressing ever more topics until we are posting novellas back and forth.  Gods know I have been guilty of that enough times.