Quote from: Peregrin;422503Right, 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.

I would say that Call of Cthulhu is basically about exploration - it's just that the characters' goals are different. You could presumably develop a Lovecraftian "Fiasco" playset - it would be wildly different from CoC even if CoC is usually likely to end badly for the investigators.

Quote from: Cole;422504I would say that Call of Cthulhu is basically about exploration - it's just that the characters' goals are different. You could presumably develop a Lovecraftian "Fiasco" playset - it would be wildly different from CoC even if CoC is usually likely to end badly for the investigators.

Yeah, such a game would probably end up being about the characters turning on each other in order to try to survive the supernatural threat, rather than fighting the threat itself. Which is how a lot of horror movies tend to roll out.

There's actually a Lovecraft-tinged playset called "Objective Zebra" that will roll out in 2011. Insufficient Metal, based on my experience with it (and Coc and ToC) I think your observation is right on the money. The game's tone can vary a lot - it is often straight up black comedy, but it can be melancholy or have an energetic action movie vibe. I guess it can also do saccharine teen comedy, although you currently void the warranty if you try that.

Stormbringer, I didn't link to the preview because I was told not to link to stuff that could be perceived as self-promotional outside of my signature. But thanks for linking to my site; it's easy to find there if you are interested - first link on the downloads page. I hope you'll take a look and re-assess based on facts. There are also a bunch of links to AP reports, all of which feature people roleplaying. It's a very RP-heavy game, which is part of why it is so much fun - you are constantly involved and have to stay on your toes.

Quote from: StormBringer;422491...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?

The last time I played Fiasco my character ended up rich, became the governor of Maryland (this was in the late 1800's), and died a peaceful death at home at a ripe old age. He was kind of a bastard, but his plans certainly worked out beautifully.

Quote from: Peregrin;422503Right, 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.

Sure, it doesn't have to be about exploration of the physical world.  In the case of CoC, it is exploration of the meta-physical world.  Every bit as rich and varied as the physical world, in the hands of a good GM.

QuoteBy 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.

There are certainly goals for play, 'survival' as the most basic.  That the goals in an RPG are not the same every time it is played does not detract from the presence of those goals.  And while the 'win' condition isn't explicit, there are certainly implicit conditions:  reach the highest level attainable, establish a stronghold, defeat the great evil, and so on.  It is certainly more complex than 'score more points than the other players', but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;422518I hope you'll take a look and re-assess based on facts.

You have an impenetrable shell of solipsism, don't you?

Quote from: StormBringer;422588There are certainly goals for play, 'survival' as the most basic.  That the goals in an RPG are not the same every time it is played does not detract from the presence of those goals.  And while the 'win' condition isn't explicit, there are certainly implicit conditions:  reach the highest level attainable, establish a stronghold, defeat the great evil, and so on.  It is certainly more complex than 'score more points than the other players', but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

You can create games within the context of play for trad RPGs, but as they exist before modification by the group, they really don't fall under general game theory.  A lack of absolute conditions for winning (where the game would terminate) and shifting goals throughout play puts it more under the banner of creative exercises rather than "normal" games.  Which is a strength and a curse.

Some people were and are able to make trad RPGs work regardless (whether through experience or cultural learning), and for the others you end up with different movements promoting "playstyles" and eventually the theory/indie movement.

Quote from: BWA;422544The last time I played Fiasco my character ended up rich, became the governor of Maryland (this was in the late 1800's), and died a peaceful death at home at a ripe old age. He was kind of a bastard, but his plans certainly worked out beautifully.

I knew someone would be along to contradict me.  

I assume you mean that your plans worked out beautifully at the expense of all the other players.

Quote from: Peregrin;422595You can create games within the context of play for trad RPGs, but as they exist before modification by the group, they really don't fall under general game theory.  A lack of absolute conditions for winning (where the game would terminate) and shifting goals throughout play puts it more under the banner of creative exercises rather than "normal" games.  Which is a strength and a curse.

Which is primarily why I don't include absolute termination conditions as a universal game element.  Certainly, it is the primary factor in competitive games; there are co-operative games that don't have such absolute conditions.  Role-playing games would fall under that rubric.

Quote from: StormBringer;422598Which is primarily why I don't include absolute termination conditions as a universal game element.  Certainly, it is the primary factor in competitive games; there are co-operative games that don't have such absolute conditions.  Role-playing games would fall under that rubric.

Examples of co-operative games without a definitive win condition or "success" where the game ends?

I am trying to make sense of StormBringer's objections to Fiasco, but it seems to me that it comes down to that he doesn't want to like the game -- so badly, in fact, that it's important to him that it not be a game.

Aside: This is the problem with games: they're so ubiquitous, if you want to get a handle on them, you've got to limit the field by definition or else you'll be swamped. Somewhere in one of the more ludological game studies books (you know, the ludologists are the ones who think that games don't tell stories, versus the narratologists who think they do--a schism that is by some accounts entirely overblown, to be sure) there's a chart of true games versus close-but-no-cigar game-like things that shows D&D as a quasi-game precisely because it has no end condition. I think maybe it's in Juul's Half-Real. In any event, it's clear what the author is up to: he wants to talk about video games as the paradigmatic exemplar of games, so he defines what he means in such a way that video games are, indeed, the paradigmatic exemplar of games. It's a kind of begging the question, though, because one way of conceptualizing "games" (as in kids' games, kids' play) is to say, like Huizinga does, that the "magic circle" of the game is all about creating a space that's bounded off from everyday life, so that it's not about winning or losing but about beginning and ending the game, opening and closing the magic circle. Or you can follow Caillois, who identifies victory and defeat (as in a contest) in one instance and winning and losing (as in a wager) in another as being elements of only some kinds of play. In other words: one way of looking at games sees the notion of their ending as a kind of intrusion upon the special social space that they create; another sees "victory" as essential to only one kind of play. Talking about games in an "all games must . . ." kind of way is a ticket to crazytown. I mean, is cat's cradle a game or not?

Now it could be that StormBringer just wants to argue that Fiasco is not a role-playing game. But we're here talking about it in Other Games, so what's the point of that? I'd say that the peculiarly narrow definition of role-playing game advocated by some folks in some threads and institutionalized in this site's structure is an invidious distinction that seeks to unwarrantedly arrogate to a specific style of play the mantle of all role-playing, but what do I know. Nonetheless, to start a thread in Other Games for the purpose of saying that this Other Game is not a Role-Playing Game strikes me as a case of the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

On the other hand, Jason has said that there is in fact some role-playing that takes place in Fiasco, and having read the rules, briefly watched some people play the game, and talked to Jason about it at a convention, I believe him. Now, I know there will be folks who will say that, well, it's not real immersive role-playing because there's no world-in-motion (hell, there's not even a GM) but since Fiasco is not much more than a situation generator (customizable by scenario) and some rules for resolving those situations, I'd say it has the potential to be quite immersive, giving that you're looking at the situation through the eyes of your character, and the main tool that you have to influence that situation is the in-game description of your character rather than any game-mechanical abilities. In fact, if I recall correctly something I heard Jason say, you don't have to stop role-playing to invoke the game-mechanics, since the role-playing takes place mainly verbally while letting others know that you're going into resolution involves the instrumental gesture of picking up the dice.

As for StormBringer's complaint that there can be only one sort of outcome in the game, I don't know what to make of it. I'm reminded of an evaluation of an idea I heard once:  "It's either trivially true or trivially false." That is, it's true that the game is designed to emulate Coen-esque dark comedy, but it's false that such emulations always produce Hamlet-like stage-clearing at the end of the night.

As near as I can figure it, what StormBringer has against Fiasco is that you can't use it as the underlying structure for an event that lasts months or years, occurring at occasional intervals over that time and during which participants meet in order to enact an episodic continuity of imagined events using a variety of different procedures tailored to represent the specific imagined situation at hand. But of course, everyone knows that's not a game.

Quote from: Peregrin;422607Examples of co-operative games without a definitive win condition or "success" where the game ends?

Well, they are largely theoretical games.  Legal contracts are sometimes used as an example; each side wants to get conditions favourable to itself in the contract, but ultimately, it 'ends' when both parties decide it does.  Most often, it is a component of a game.  For instance, the majority of Diplomacy revolves around such play, although the game itself is competitive.  Pandemic is similar, each turn being played co-operatively.

I mean, if you want to get hung up on the minutest of details, then you should probably turn your attention to Mr Morningstar, who makes the broadest of statements without any measure of support.  If you are arguing so vehemently that RPGs are barely games, then you can't possibly think that Fiasco is a game at all.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot the big example that I mentioned in the post to which you were responding:
RPGs
Is it visible this time?

Quote from: Bill White;422636I am trying to make sense of StormBringer's objections to Fiasco, but it seems to me that it comes down to that he doesn't want to like the game -- so badly, in fact, that it's important to him that it not be a game.

Well, I will sum it up for you, then:  You are not trying to make sense of my objections at all, you are just offended that they exist.  You spend the rest of your content-free post trying to cast dispersions without any attempt to support your assertions.  For example:

QuoteI'm reminded of an evaluation of an idea I heard once:  "It's either trivially true or trivially false."

I'm thrilled that you heard this somewhere about something at some time.  However, the statement itself (while possibly accurate about whatever the hell it is you are talking about) is more than trivially false.  It's overwhelmingly false, to the point of irrelevance to the discussion at hand.  If you want, I can post random sentences that are not relevant:

I'm reminded of an evaluation of a person I heard once:  "They are a complete fucking douchebag".

Does that bolster my argument in any way?  Is it even remotely relevant to what we are discussing?  In both cases, no.  The same is true of your example, it does nothing to strengthen your argument, and it isn't relevant to anything being discussed.

Is everyone about finished with the rush to 'contradict StormBringer by any means necessary' in the attempt to knock me down a peg, or whatever the point of this little exercise is?  You folks can keep it up if you want to, I will just take the rest of this conversation to email with Cole,  the only poster that not only understands the discussion, but is willing to have an open conversation in good faith about it.

Quote from: StormBringer;422667You spend the rest of your content-free post trying to cast dispersions without any attempt to support your assertions.  

Let me help you: You mean "cast aspersions," not dispersions.

Call me a douchebag all you want, it doesn't change the basic fact that you're not making any sense. And you can call my post "content-free" all you like, it doesn't change the basic fact that I am making an argument that it is (a) wrong to say Fiasco isn't a game, and (b) inappropriate to say it isn't a role-playing game here in this forum, and wrong anywhere else. That argument wasn't perfect, and there are plenty of ways that you could have grappled with it that would have made sense and forced me to defend my position.

I was surprised at your refusal to engage with my argument rather than descending into insult and vulgarity, but then I remembered that you're just a guy on the Internet.

Hey Stormbringer,

People are gently correcting you in this thread, which is very kind of them, because you're arguing loudly from a position of ignorance.

If you want to say Fiasco isn't an RPG, or that it is a poorly-designed RPG (pretty sure you've made both claims), that's great. People can use statements like that as a benchmark of the value of your subsequent comments one way or the other.

But when you say things that aren't true because you don't know the first thing about the game, well, that's not cool. By your own reasoning, you shouldn't do that. Let me help you out.

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.

While I commend your close reading of the title, here's the demonstrable part, which I will now demonstrate: Outcomes in Fiasco vary for each character, and range from brutally tragic to wildly successful. It's possible, although statistically unlikely, for every character to have a positive outcome at the end of the session. Typically, and by design, one character emerges in excellent shape, the better to contrast the ignominious failure of the others. There's a tactical component to engineering these outcomes for yourself and the other players.

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.

Again with the demonstration: There are no restrictions on how characters are played beyond your friend's tolerance for your nonsense. None. It is structured freeform. I don't even know how you could draw this conclusion, unless you just desperately wanted it to be true. And Bill's right about immersion - the game mechanics are very light, and specifically designed to be engaged without interrupting a scene or breaking character if your crew rolls that way.

Hopefully that's helpful! I honestly think that if you could get past the doctrinaire nerdrage and try Fiasco, you'd enjoy it. It's simple, fast, and does what it's designed to do really well. I've played with old skool Grognards, I've played with total noobs, and I've played with HERO developer Steve Long, and they've all had a great time. If we're ever at a convention together I'd love to throw down a game with you.