Quote from: StormBringer;422401Here's an idea, dig up some APs where Fiasco is used to play a bog-standard dungeon crawl, and the players make it out with the treasure and in reasonably good shape.  Or some other similar session from any genre of game.  In other words, find one where the game doesn't follow a strict railroad into misery and defeat.  Then you can claim it is not too narrowly focused.

I don't really follow you - yes, I'm making an exaggeration but that's like saying that chess is too narrowly focuses a game because you can't readily use it to play a dungeon crawl with a successful outcome. Chess is too narrowly focused to act as a D&D substitute, but not too narrowly focused to play chess.

I would agree that Fiasco is much too narrowly focused to find the kind of broad popular appeal that D&D does - this is not alien from my arguments in the DitV/D&D thread - but that's a different question. What is fiasco too narrowly focused to do?

Quote from: StormBringer;422401For other folks, this just came across my radar, and may explain some of what motivates these games to restrict game-play so thoroughly:

That was a depressing article, yeah.

"This is what makes the world boring, quite frankly: the absolute refusal to risk that anything might be disappointing, and the accompanying conviction that if you are disappointed, you've been wronged. It's the entitlement of the incurious, and it does nothing good for anyone."

This speaks to why I so prefer the open-endedness of the traditional RPG. But I can understand why in some situations, some people might want a more structured, guided, or even predictable experience.

Stormbringer, there's apparently a disconnect in your expectations for what a game should reliably do. Fiasco doesn't do what Lamentations of the Flame Princess does, by design. It does something different. If you don't like what it does, yes, definitely, it is too narrowly focused for you. But it isn't too narrowly focused for the people who are enjoying Fiasco, who are many and awesome.

Quote from: Cole;422408I don't really follow you - yes, I'm making an exaggeration but that's like saying that chess is too narrowly focuses a game because you can't readily use it to play a dungeon crawl with a successful outcome. Chess is too narrowly focused to act as a D&D substitute, but not too narrowly focused to play chess.

That is absolutely correct.  Chess is very narrowly focused, but you would expect that from a board game.  Similarly, Monopoly and Arkham Horror (on very different ends of the spectrum) are highly narrow in their focus.  It really isn't a problem with a board game, but it becomes a problem with role-playing games, where the outcomes - since day one, really - have been entirely open ended.  Were these indie games designed with some kind of board element, even a simple chart to move tokens around, there wouldn't be much of an issue.  They play out very much like board games without a board.

QuoteI would agree that Fiasco is much too narrowly focused to find the kind of broad popular appeal that D&D does - this is not alien from my arguments in the DitV/D&D thread - but that's a different question. What is fiasco too narrowly focused to do?

The sole game play element that can be derived from Fiasco is that your plans will fail.  Period.  I mean, it is in the title.  Any other genuine RPG generates characters for a particular genre, and sets the players loose to do whatever.  Their actions (and whatever mechanics and dice rolls adjudicate the results of those actions) are entirely within their control.

My statement is twofold, then:  First, Fiasco is simply a bad overall design as a game.  Second, not only is the focus too narrow, but it eschews the major elements that would make it an appealing role-playing game.  Due to the severe restrictions in how characters are played, I would even go so far as to say there is little actual role-playing available.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;422422Stormbringer, there's apparently a disconnect in your expectations for what a game should reliably do. Fiasco doesn't do what Lamentations of the Flame Princess does, by design. It does something different. If you don't like what it does, yes, definitely, it is too narrowly focused for you. But it isn't too narrowly focused for the people who are enjoying Fiasco, who are many and awesome.

No, you utterly fail to understand what a game is.  And just because too much heroin will kill me, it doesn't follow that heroin is bad only for me.  People can and often do make substantial statements that are supported by what we like to call 'facts'.  Even in the absence of absolute factual evidence, arguments can be made that are more logical and coherent, hence, more likely to be true.

I know for a fact you are fully aware of this, because you want everyone to accept your statements as fact while dismissing any that contradict them as opinion.  You even feebly use an argumentum ad populum to try to demonstrate the vast legion of Fiasco players can't be wrong.  This shows that you have entirely missed the point, probably intentionally.  I offered various criticisms of Fiasco as a reason why it has little appeal, but that is more of a sideline.  The main point is that Fiasco is gravely flawed in a number of ways that prevent it from being considered a role-playing game in the first place.  In my previous response to Cole, I explained why it isn't really a game, and how the role-playing part is severely restricted.

And even if your alleged 'many' players numbered in the thousands, that still makes Fiasco magnitudes of order less popular than looking at furry porn.  You really have to have the populum before you can make the argumentum.

Quote from: StormBringer;422458The sole game play element that can be derived from Fiasco is that your plans will fail.  Period.  I mean, it is in the title.  Any other genuine RPG generates characters for a particular genre, and sets the players loose to do whatever.  Their actions (and whatever mechanics and dice rolls adjudicate the results of those actions) are entirely within their control.

Well, that is why I prefer D&D to Fiasco. Ensuring that the characters are to fail would radically change D&D, in my opinion, for the worse.

But conversely, allowing the characters the possibility of success defeats the purpose of Fiasco in the first place. It's not a flaw of chess that it precludes a diplomatic resolution.

Quote from: StormBringer;422458My statement is twofold, then:  First, Fiasco is simply a bad overall design as a game.  Second, not only is the focus too narrow, but it eschews the major elements that would make it an appealing role-playing game.  Due to the severe restrictions in how characters are played, I would even go so far as to say there is little actual role-playing available.

I tend to agree with your second statement - the first is just a matter of preference. More strictly it's a matter of what the game sets out to accomplish and what it doesn't - It's not a flaw of chess that it precludes a diplomatic resolution.

I wouldn't use Fiasco to run a bog-standard dungeon crawl any more than I'd use Warhammer 2E to run a Coen Brothers-style noir game, or Call of Cthulhu to run a pulp sci-fi campaign.

Cool, good to know how you feel, Stormbringer. Would you say your opinions are well formed, poorly formed, or flat out wrong? Before you answer, let's review:

QuoteThe sole game play element that can be derived from Fiasco is that your plans will fail. Period. I mean, it is in the title.

This is demonstrably, objectively wrong. Did you know there's a free preview of Fiasco available?

Quoteit eschews the major elements that would make it an appealing role-playing game.

If "appealing" is a 1:1 map with "what Stormbringer likes", definitely. Otherwise, I dunno, a lot of people find it a very appealing genuine  role-playing game.

QuoteDue to the severe restrictions in how characters are played, I would even go so far as to say there is little actual role-playing available.

I don't even know where to begin. Again with the demonstrably, objectively wrong. For Pete's sake, this thread was started, by you, with an AP report. Do you think those kids were not role-playing?

So, well formed, poorly formed, or flat out wrong?

Quote from: Cole;422469But conversely, allowing the characters the possibility of success defeats the purpose of Fiasco in the first place. It's not a flaw of chess that it precludes a diplomatic resolution.

But that is kind of the point.  RPGs aren't really designed to have a 'purpose'.  Despite various arguments to the contrary, the heart of an RPG experience really is exploration.  One can make reasonable statements that this RPG is too combat heavy, or that RPG is too complex, but they are all predicated on exploring the world the characters are involved in.

QuoteI tend to agree with your second statement - the first is just a matter of preference. More strictly it's a matter of what the game sets out to accomplish and what it doesn't - It's not a flaw of chess that it precludes a diplomatic resolution.

Whether or not you enjoy an activity is certainly a matter of preference.  What constitutes a game is less open for debate.  There are some fuzzy borders, to be sure, but the one thing they all have in common is that the outcome is not usually pre-determined.  In fact, the outcome is almost always determined by the actions of the players, and it is from those actions that play proceeds.  These are important factors in separating an activity (like crossword puzzles) from games (chess or cribbage).  There is certainly room for a reasonable debate on some of the less distinct features:  randomizer or not, tokens/playing pieces or not, and so on.

Therefore, being a board game, chess is not necessarily required to be open ended as a goal, but the outcome is not determined by what colour you choose at the beginning of the game.  White isn't forced into making a dozen brilliant moves in the middle game then utterly failing to take the king at the end.  Additionally, chess is not a game about diplomacy, it is a game about war.  And again, being a board game, it has much more leeway in the narrowness of its design.  You can't choose to simply move to California in a game of Arkham Horror, either, but the game doesn't suffer because that isn't an option.

Quote from: StormBringer;422484But that is kind of the point.  RPGs aren't really designed to have a 'purpose'.  Despite various arguments to the contrary, the heart of an RPG experience really is exploration.  One can make reasonable statements that this RPG is too combat heavy, or that RPG is too complex, but they are all predicated on exploring the world the characters are involved in.

I agree with you about RPGs. (Or "Traditional RPGs" if just to spawn another "how do we fine RPG" thread.)

QuoteWhether or not you enjoy an activity is certainly a matter of preference.  What constitutes a game is less open for debate.  There are some fuzzy borders, to be sure, but the one thing they all have in common is that the outcome is not usually pre-determined.

That definition of game is narrower than I'd expect colloquially. What if instead of a game it were called a "Story building activity" or "Story building exercise?"

But I digress, I think.

I do think it might be potentially interesting to play a round of Fiasco prior to, say, a D&D game - a campaign is innately open-ended but it generally has some sort of fixed starting point - if the DM presented general starting setup to the game, the Fiasco might flesh out the details of how that setup was reached so that everyone was on the same page about it. I wouldn't do it regularly, myself, but it might be a fun experiment in starting up a game.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;422474This is demonstrably, objectively wrong. Did you know there's a free preview of Fiasco available?

...that you didn't link to.  Does this free preview show the players scrambling around in the last act and having their plans work out beautifully?

QuoteIf "appealing" is a 1:1 map with "what Stormbringer likes", definitely. Otherwise, I dunno, a lot of people find it a very appealing genuine  role-playing game.

Appealing has no particular map.  Do you have even a rough number as to what "a lot" represents?  Or is this where you are actually using what you accuse me of doing?  "A lot" seems to map to "what Jason Morningstar thinks is a big number".

QuoteI don't even know where to begin. Again with the demonstrably, objectively wrong. For Pete's sake, this thread was started, by you, with an AP report. Do you think those kids were not role-playing?

"Demonstrably wrong" means you have demonstrated how it is wrong.  You haven't in any way, shape or form.  "Objectively" indicates a statement that is beyond contradiction. You probably think the rest of us just toss those things around as code words or jargon, but they aren't.  They really do have a meaning and correct usage.  Neither of which have been employed in your postings...oh, I dunno...  ever?

And no, I really don't think those kids were engaged in role-playing.  At any rate, far less than the Harry Potter RP folks are engaged in it.

QuoteSo, well formed, poorly formed, or flat out wrong?

I do not discuss matters unless and until I have a well formed thought in place.  To do otherwise is foolish.

Oh, and here is the blurb from the very site that offers Fiasco, Bully Pulpit Games:

QuoteIt seemed like such a good idea at the time.

 Fiasco is inspired by cinematic tales of small time capers gone disastrously wrong – inspired by films like Blood Simple, Fargo, The Way of the Gun, Burn After Reading, and A Simple Plan.  You'll play ordinary people with powerful ambition and poor impulse  control. There will be big dreams and flawed execution. It won't go well  for them, to put it mildly, and in the end it will probably all go  south in a glorious heap of jealousy, murder, and recrimination. Lives  and reputations will be lost, painful wisdom will be gained, and if you  are really lucky, your guy just might end up back where he started.


 Fiasco is a GM-less game for 3-5 players, designed to be played in a  few hours with six-sided dice and no preparation. During a game you will  engineer and play out stupid, disastrous situations, usually at the  intersection of greed, fear, and lust. It's like making your own Coen  brothers movie, in about the same amount of time it'd take to watch one.

So, where in there is the part where my statements are overwhelmingly contradicted?  Where is the section that demonstrates the game is not about disastrous failure?

Fiasco's rules as written don't result in universal, disastrous failure for all involved. A given disaster is the centerpiece of gameplay, but you can say that of most RPGs. The character's fates are not a fait accompli. There are people who get screwed over and people who walk away whistling, just as in a lot of Coen films and such.

You could even play the game without any disastrous consequences, although that sounds about as exciting as hanging out in the tavern instead of going to the dungeon. But the level of catastrophe is still pretty much in the hands of the players.

Call of Cthulhu is much more geared toward "disastrous failure" than Fiasco is, and IMO is no less entertaining for it.

Quote from: Cole;422490I agree with you about RPGs. (Or "Traditional RPGs" if just to spawn another "how do we fine RPG" thread.)
How about we don't spawn another such thread?  

QuoteThat definition of game is narrower than I'd expect colloquially. What if instead of a game it were called a "Story building activity" or "Story building exercise?"

Even colloquially, there are elements that separate a 'game' from an 'activity'.  If you were to refer to Fiasco in particular by either of the two terms you suggested, I would have no problems.  Those are almost the same terms I have used in the past precisely because these are the best descriptors of those activities.

It's not about exclusion, though, it's just proper classification.  It can be confusing for novices or relapsed players getting back into the game to be presented with the Fiasco RPG, which is nothing like other games on the market.

QuoteI do think it might be potentially interesting to play a round of Fiasco prior to, say, a D&D game - a campaign is innately open-ended but it generally has some sort of fixed starting point - if the DM presented general starting setup to the game, the Fiasco might flesh out the details of how that setup was reached so that everyone was on the same page about it. I wouldn't do it regularly, myself, but it might be a fun experiment in starting up a game.

Absolutely.  As I have mentioned before, these kinds of rules would make very good mini-games or subsystems for other 'traditional' RPGs.  I could even imagine Fiasco used as a cut-scene where the participants are playing out the disastrous events that lead their regular PCs to investigate the ruined temple or the goblin immigration or whatever.

Quote from: StormBringer;422499How about we don't spawn another such thread?  

Haha! I agree. I meant to say Or "Traditional RPGs" if just not to spawn another "how do we fine RPG" thread.

Right, SB, but can't exploration be about something other than the world? For ex., Call of Cthulhu doesn't require the GM to flesh out the world very much outside of characters and given scenes, and as an investigative game, it's much more focused on the situations rather than wandering around discovering bits of the world the GM thought up.

QuoteWhether or not you enjoy an activity is certainly a matter of preference. What constitutes a game is less open for debate.

By broader game theory, as in inclusively speaking anything from board-games, to sports, to video-games, D&D cannot be classified as a "game" because the activity is so malleable and dynamic that no clear goals for play or win conditions exist.  It is really one of the only genres of "games" that can't be classified explicitly as a game.