I think I agree with you, TE.

My only comment is that the "exclusion" of the element can't mean that it doesn't exist as you can roleplay your Barbarian in HeroQuest, for example. It is more likely to be an exclusion of that element in terms of the mechanics and/or in the purpose of the game itself.

Quote from: soviet;669114Is an actor playing a role if he makes decisions based on what the director said or what he thinks will be most interesting rather than based on what the character itself would definitely do?

An actor is acting, and there are different schools, ask Alexander, he's a professional.  BTW, Scorcese is famous for letting his actors get into the characters and just go for it, and he's not alone.

If you're tired of trying to declare Roleplaying as not playing a role, maybe you want to join in on the actual discussion in the thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669123An actor is acting, and there are different schools, ask Alexander, he's a professional.  BTW, Scorcese is famous for letting his actors get into the characters and just go for it, and he's not alone.

If you're tired of trying to declare Roleplaying as not playing a role, maybe you want to join in on the actual discussion in the thread.

You are trying to define method acting as the only valid form of acting and you are wrong.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669117Back to the separation: we both know on this site there will be no change.

I totally agree.

FWIW the point of this thread was simply to present an alternative for people to consider, rather than just have this forum being about defending specific RPGs.

Quote from: CRKruegerEven if we did get Pundit to open up a new forum for Narrative RPGs, people would still go apeshit because he wouldn't put FATE there.  Why?  Because you chop out all narrative OOC stuff from FATE, there is still a perfectly useable game system there.  You remove the OOC mechanics from MHR, there is no game left.[\quote]

That's a distinction I'd have no issue with. Its that Pundit's distinctions don't follow any universal rationale that I can perceive that causes me to bitch. Futilely, I'm aware, but the same goes for any geek bitching, whether its about superhero films or the descent of rpgnet into a haven for entitled emotionally-stunted wankers. Sometimes its just fun to vent.

QuoteCould things be separated better, sure, but that would be on a site that was set up to cover the whole hobby, not set up as a reaction against a civil war started within the hobby.

Does that civil war exist outside of the Pundit's imagination?

QuoteI think a better way to go about it might be to see what games people would put in different categories and why.

I agree that might be interesting. I'm going to get to work on my list. As I only p include games I've read/played it certainly won't be an exhaustive list of non-rphough.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669119I think the act of role-playing' is literally playing a role. I think role playing games comprise much more than that, otherwise system would be unnecessary. I can sit around and method àct with friends for hours without once playing an RPG. I think rpgs are what happens when method acting meets wargamming, and its not totally one thing nor the other, just as I think a game like Smallville is not simply a variation of Once Upon a Time or Baron Munchausen. Sô I guess it çeases to be an RPG for me, not because a game includes elements besides method acting, but when it completely excludes that element.

I first heard Roleplaying described as playing pretend with rules.  The first iteration was a man-to-man wargame really, but by the time we started calling it Dungeons and Dragons we had a setting of fantasy trappings that made it easy to take on the persona of a character in that world and mechanical rules to determine the outcome of tasks.

Sure a Roleplaying game is more then just Roleplaying, it is also the game.  But when you start having a game where more and more rules are used OOC while not Roleplaying... I know you see where I'm going.

Quote from: soviet;669124You are trying to define method acting as the only valid form of acting and you are wrong.

Yeah that's why I mentioned different schools of acting, and said actors act, not roleplay.:rolleyes:

To extend the useless analogy, No, actually you're trying to include not acting into the definition of acting.

Quote from: Skywalker;669122I think I agree with you, TE.

My only comment is that the "exclusion" of the element can't mean that it doesn't exist as you can roleplay your Barbarian in HeroQuest, for example. It is more likely to be an exclusion of that element in terms of the mechanics and/or in the purpose of the game itself.

Yeah, hat reminds of one fellow on rpgnet arguing that one 'could roleplay their piece in Monopoly. Perhaps then the divider is something along the lines of where 'role playing isn't the primary purpose of the game. Again, though, that might be tricky to define specifically. In MHR is one spending less than 50% of their time role playing their character? This could easily vary from group to group even playing R AW.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669130I first heard Roleplaying described as playing pretend with rules.  The first iteration was a man-to-man wargame really, but by the time we started calling it Dungeons and Dragons we had a setting of fantasy trappings that made it easy to take on the persona of a character in that world and mechanical rules to determine the outcome of tasks.

Sure a Roleplaying game is more then just Roleplaying, it is also the game.  But when you start having a game where more and more rules are used OOC while not Roleplaying... I know you see where I'm going.

Yeah, I think we just arrived at the same spot I just mentioned. Role play should be the primary purpose of an RPG, but that's going to be tricky to determine with any exactitude.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669131Yeah that's why I mentioned different schools of acting, and said actors act, not roleplay.:rolleyes:

To extend the useless analogy, No, actually you're trying to include not acting into the definition of acting.

No, I'm not. Let's bring this back to roleplaying.

Three people are playing in a D&D game. A bunch of orcs come round the corner and start a fight. Each player says some dialogue in character, describes some cool action or manoeuvre, and rolls the relevant dice. To an outside observer all of the dialogue and description was of the same standard.

Player A ran in and charged orc 1 with his spear primarily because that's what he thought his character would do based on his personality and background.

Player B ran in and tripped up orc 2 with his morning star primarily because that's the most mechanically efficient thing to do in a fight like this.

Player C ran in and smashed a nearby urn over the head of orc 3 primarily because he thought it would be a cool and cinematic thing to do.

Again, all of the players provided a convincing bit of dialogue and description, and to an outside observer (including the GM and the other players) they were of the same quality. Their exact motivations are unknown to anyone else.

Which of these people do you think were roleplaying?

Quote from: TristramEvans;669133In MHR is one spending less than 50% of their time role playing their character? This could easily vary from group to group even playing R AW.

I agree, but I am happy to examine and argue each game, rather than making sweeping statements to avoid arguments

In terms of MHR, I think that narratively it is an RPG. Where it may be distinguished, if anywhere, is in its tactical combat system. Though you continue to play characters whilst engaging with the combat system, the combination of mechanical advantages to be won by the players and the GM's restriction a limited resource mechanic changes the purpose of the mechanics. The players and Watcher are now encouraged mechanically only to compete against the opposing player/Watcher to obtain "in-game" advantage. There is no such advantage for just playing their character (though the player can chose to do so). This is analogous to playing a board game like Descent.

My experiences with MHR support this in that though I enjoyed running/playing it, there was a definite shift during each combat that didn't sit well with me at the time.

FWIW the main reason I am reluctant to use CRK's term "Hybrid" for Tactical RPGs and Narrative RPGs, is that there are games where they may actually switch purpose like this during play. This is what I would consider a true Hybrid game.

The problem is these fictional lines in the sand are entirely arbitrary. I play OD&D with no supplements, which makes a lot of rulings OOC. My players add rulings, it's totally collaborative. We have no defined world pre-game and the story is whatever the player decide at the time. It's totally improvised. By all the bullshit definitions this style of OD&D is a storygame. If something can be played as an "rpg" and "story game" then that's a playstyle not an entirely different game.

FWIW your approach to OD&D would be an RPG IMO for reasons set out above and not a story-game. But I think your example supports the idea that OOC engagement alone is an arbitrary point of distinction given how RPGs have been played for decades.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669162The problem is these fictional lines in the sand are entirely arbitrary. I play OD&D with no supplements, which makes a lot of rulings OOC. My players add rulings, it's totally collaborative. We have no defined world pre-game and the story is whatever the player decide at the time. It's totally improvised. By all the bullshit definitions this style of OD&D is a storygame. If something can be played as an "rpg" and "story game" then that's a playstyle not an entirely different game.

See I sort of agree and that's what I was referencing when I mentioned 'storygaming' as a way of playing earlier. When I think of story games as a word to describe something separate from rpgs, and not in a derogatory manner, I'm talking about things like Baron Munchausen ( which is really a drinking game that parodies rpgs of the 90s) and Smallvillee ( which is a nifty excercize in soap opera metaplot development, but if any role playing is taking place its at best incidental to the rules). I assume there must be more games like that out there, since they seem to intimidate certain 'traditional roleplayers' ( meaning, for the most part, 'the way I roleplayed with my friends in the 80s, and obviously our tree fort was the best). But honestly I've encountered very few myself, unless we include a bunch of free 'avant-garde' rpgs online that I tend to doubt ever got played or were intended to be, but were rather clever nonetheless.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669133Yeah, hat reminds of one fellow on rpgnet arguing that one 'could roleplay their piece in Monopoly. Perhaps then the divider is something along the lines of where 'role playing isn't the primary purpose of the game. Again, though, that might be tricky to define specifically. In MHR is one spending less than 50% of their time role playing their character? This could easily vary from group to group even playing R AW.

There was a moderately interesting thread on story-games.com a few weeks back where they put up a good point re. that one: Monopoly fails to be an RPG because no matter how good your silly voice is, your pyromaniac tycoon can't burn down hotels to cost the competition rent - the fiction layer doesn't affect the mechanical layer (because that is so limited).