Quote from: Peregrin;492746Sure it's story-gaming, even though it may require moving beyond the creator's intentions.  

Ravenloft? Dragonlance? Al-Qadim?

QuoteAt some point, though, it changes the game.  Are you still playing D&D if you move beyond the game implied by the text?  From one gamer to another in casual conversation, sure, why not.  In meta-discussions about gaming and theory?  IMO, not really.

Are you still playing AD&D if you don't use weapon speeds? How about encumbrance? What if you use all the rules but play for a particular purpose, like exploration or story?

To me, the answer is always the same, no matter what:

Nobody ever plays a game the same way.  We all take away our interpretations of game texts, the areas we choose to emphasize or de-emphasize, house rules both explicit and implicit, misunderstandings and mistakes, and we play a game that is unique to our group in that moment.

QuoteFor me, it's more about the individual game.  Not "are you storygaming?" but "are you playing D&D?"  I think "D&D" encompasses a larger range of games, though, basically all of adventure gaming.  So replace "D&D" with "adventure RPG."  Honestly something like "adventure RPG," "story RPG," etc, would be more useful to me, but that'd require people accept all of these games as RPGs.

There are also many adventure stories, so there'd be an overlap, but I agree, "adventure RPG" sounds like it could be a useful term. Surely not all adventure gaming is D&D, though.

What is more tedious, arguing that playing [according to some slightly houseruled version of the written rules of] D&D but playing "for the story" = not playing D&D

... or

... arguing that playing [according to some slightly houseruled version of the written rules of] D&D but playing "for the story" = not playing a roleplaying game?

[This may be a flame troll question.]

Quote from: JDCorley;492836Ravenloft? Dragonlance? Al-Qadim?

Which is why, though it's far removed my own experiences, I agree with some that that's where the drift of D&D started and doesn't exactly align with the intentions of the people who created the game.  D&D is a brand, and can encompass more than a single, discrete game.

QuoteAre you still playing AD&D if you don't use weapon speeds? How about encumbrance?

Does the absence of those rules change the initial premise of the game?

Changing the weapon damage specs in Warcraft III doesn't change the fact that you're playing Warcraft III.  Playing a heavily modified custom map where everyone only controls a single hero creates totally different expectations for play and means you're probably playing Defense of the Ancients, not Warcraft III.

QuoteWhat if you use all the rules but play for a particular purpose, like exploration or story?

Do those rules support or hinder your goals?  How do you play with different meta-goals in mind if you're claiming to play the game by the procedures an expectations outlined in the text which already have built-in assumptions about play-goals?

QuoteNobody ever plays a game the same way.  We all take away our interpretations of game texts, the areas we choose to emphasize or de-emphasize, house rules both explicit and implicit, misunderstandings and mistakes, and we play a game that is unique to our group in that moment.

As a relatively young gamer I think this has done more harm than good in making our hobby attractive to outsiders, because there is so much variation and subcultural baggage that you can't pick up a book and understand what the purpose of play is, and oftentimes have to deal with bullshit like "playstyles" and other nonsense where people are segmenting themselves even without the help of explicit labels for games.  Some designers have gotten better about this, but there's still a lot of really poorly explained games.

Number 1 question I always get when someone asks about RPGs:
"Well what's the point?  What do you do?"

I can explain Fiasco, I can explain Burning Wheel, Call of Cthulhu is pretty easy, and I can explain D&D for the most part -- all within one or a few sentence each -- but there are a lot of games that you can't explain easily without going on a rant or describing the fictional background.  Now if I throw on a layer of zen "Well it's whatever you want it to be, man" that's only going to make people even more wary.

This isn't something unique to tabletop, though, and there are some video-games that have taken years to become a little more coherent and popular with regular folk (the tightening up of The Elder Scrolls games comes to mind).

QuoteThere are also many adventure stories, so there'd be an overlap, but I agree, "adventure RPG" sounds like it could be a useful term. Surely not all adventure gaming is D&D, though.

Adventure RPG, action RPG.  It's hard to pin down a particular term.  No terminology is perfect (Japanese RPGs often have very little in common with Western RPGs in terms of play-goals, but they share a common ancestry).

I think the openess of table top rpgs is their big attraction to me. The great thing about D&D is there isn't one true way to play. And the one time they tried to be more focused on a particular style of play (with 4e) it didn't go so well for them.

Personally I think people have some misconception about the hobby prior to d20 (my experience only goes back to 86 so can't comment much on before that). Even though lots of people used different optional rules and even homebrew mechanics in my early years of play, playstyle was more consistent than it is today. We had all types of gamers at the table so as GMs it was our responsibility to run a game that appealed to everyone. Now it feels like people divide themselves into types and play with likeminded gamers. I think the fragmentation of the community is more of a hurdle to the game's popularity than a lack of focus on one style of play in the rules.