One Horse, dont know if your post was directed at me or not. If that was the case, please, I ask you to direct it at me the next time. And about discussing individual games, sure, Im all open to it.

But the thread was opened to point out a clearly identifiable pattern around here. If its not valid for you, thats ok because no one is forcing you to patcicipate. Keep in mind though, that it is perfectly valid for other people.

Quote from: silva;676136My intention here is just to express a feeling that, contrary to what a lot of guys around here believe, those 2 types of games are in fact distinct, and are perceived like that by the majority of people everywhere on the net or in the meat world.

Understood. But I have to agree with OHT on this one and this seems to be what most of your threads end up being about. Personally I would love to see some discussion of the games you listed (in both lists). Largely because I don't know a lot about some of them and am interested in your take. this constant debate over definitions and categorizations is seriously draining my interest in online rpg discussions (it isn't just here, other forums have their own pet debates--often centered around definitions as well). I guess I have stopped caring about what box a given game goes in. If you really like the games listed there, get people excited to try them out.

Take Doctor Who. It is a great game. I have the boxed set and love it. Some folks are going to label story points a narrative mechanic, some won't. Personally I don't care. I don't waste any energy worrying about whether someone online objects to calling it an RPG. And I do not allow online rpg discusions to limit what I play at my table. Would much rather see a discusion about the game itself, that doesn't get bogged down in what to label one aspect of the system, that inspires me at the table. Same for stuff like Torchbearer or AW. In my opinion these sorts of thread that focus on the divide, only deepen it.

Are people confusing  a character having the ability to pull off a heroic and epic feat with a player controlling the narrative?

Quote from: Bill;676177Are people confusing  a character having the ability to pull off a heroic and epic feat with a player controlling the narrative?

Nope. Except if you consider producing things out of thin air, or making an NPC fall in love with you as "heroic and epic" feat.

Quote from: silva;676180Nope. Except if you consider producing things out of thin air, or making an NPC fall in love with you as "heroic and epic" feat.

If the character has this power in the world itself, it's emulation, not narrative control. A magic user casting a fire ball is producing such an effect out of thin air because he has the power to do it. A PC giving a love elixir to an NPC and causing that NPC to fall in love is doing this in the game world, not as a result of a "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative".

An Amberite can alter reality and produce things out of thin air because that's what Amberites ARE in the game world, not because of a meta-game "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative." The CHARACTER does it, IN the game world, not the player OUT of it.

Quote from: BenoistIf the character has this power in the world itself, it's emulation, not narrative control..

Yup, and no one is arguing the contrary. Its the difference between, say, Vampire´s Willpower and Shadowrun´s Karma - the first has an in-fiction causality, while the second has not.

Quote from: Benoist;676185If the character has this power in the world itself, it's emulation, not narrative control. A magic user casting a fire ball is producing such an effect out of thin air because he has the power to do it. A PC giving a love elixir to an NPC and causing that NPC to fall in love is doing this in the game world, not as a result of a "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative".

An Amberite can alter reality and produce things out of thin air because that's what Amberites ARE in the game world, not because of a meta-game "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative." The CHARACTER does it, IN the game world, not the player OUT of it.

As far as I can gather, that's why Pundit doesn't consider Amber a story game, though he would of those same mechanics existed in another setting. Which suggests to me that at least a large part of whether a rpg is considered a story game is based on a gamebook's ability to rationalize its mechanics based on the setting. I'm wondering how explicit this would have to be though. If a player can rationalize an abstract mecjhanic in the context of their setting does this matter if the gamebook itself doesn't provide this explanation? And does that mean any story game could be an rpg if paired with the right setting?

Certainly the story points of DrWho fit the emulation of that TV show, but it's still not even remotely simulationist it's in approach ( GNS seems to lack any acknowledgement of emulationist as a motivation, or confuses it with 'narrativism' which is amusing). So then, taking a game that is all about emulation, like The One Ring, why does it not get the 'pass' of being a 'real rpg' granted to Amber? And is the divide between story game vs " story game" actually more like 'storygame' vs 'emulation game' ( prefer 'genre game' as a term myself, even though its technically inaccurate)?

Good points, Tristram. And I like the term "genre game".

Quote from: TristramEvans;676239As far as I can gather, that's why Pundit doesn't consider Amber a story game, though he would of those same mechanics existed in another setting. Which suggests to me that at least a large part of whether a rpg is considered a story game is based on a gamebook's ability to rationalize its mechanics based on the setting. I'm wondering how explicit this would have to be though. If a player can rationalize an abstract mecjhanic in the context of their setting does this matter if the gamebook itself doesn't provide this explanation? And does that mean any story game could be an rpg if paired with the right setting?

That's fascinating and hilarious.

I was going to say no, and wrote several supporting arguments, but counter-argued myself out of them.

Quote from: silva;676186Yup, and no one is arguing the contrary. Its the difference between, say, Vampire´s Willpower and Shadowrun´s Karma - the first has an in-fiction causality, while the second has not.

Spoiler

Eh, you have to remember Shadowrun is the future of Earthdawn.  All of the races of Shadowrun are what in Earthdawn would be called "Namegivers", these races are tied to the magical fabric of the world.  Even a normal human who isn't "magical" can create, and when he does, he weaves a Pattern that brings something into existence that did not exist before.

Karma is representative of that power.  It can be used to better oneself, basically reweaving your own Pattern to make yourself stronger, faster, more skilled, what have you, or it can be used in a very limited fashion to alter things, to grab victory from the jaws of defeat.

The linkage isn't made very explicit because that was one of the "big reveals" of the metaplot.

Thats an interesting explanation, Krueger. But you have to agree with me that, since Shadowrun itself dont explain that, its only a interpretation and not a canonical definition. I, for one, have never read, played or cared for the other setting, and then, for me, Karma is what is written in the book - a meta-game mechanic for helping characters out when the player sees fit.

Quote from: One Horse Town;676143It's hilarious that some posters spend all their time crying over definitions and where certain game discussions go and yet don't talk about those games at all - just the definitions and where they go.

I'd love to talk about Tenra Bansho Zero on therpgsite but I'm not allowed to talk about it in the roleplaying games section so I have to do it elsewhere. It is a regrettable situation, I agree.

QuoteKinda says that they're more interested in having a fight than actually discussing the games themselves - or perhaps they don't play them at all and just have a few pdfs on the old hard-drive...

3/10, needs stronger insinuations (also, claiming time spent talking about games online is equivalent to time spent playing games is kinda funny)

I don't think categories have any intrinsic use. I think they're only useful as shorthand, mostly to help people find games they like and avoid ones they don't like.

A bit like genres. Where does SF end? Well, it doesn't, eventually it blurs into fantasy, into thrillers, into whatever. Why then have something called SF? Well, if mostly you don't like books with SF elements or mostly you do it's handy to have the term so you can avoid/seek out that bit of the bookshop. It's not though ever a fixed category, it's a handy shorthand.

So, storygames. Some people, Pundy say, really don't like a certain kind of game so it's a handy term for them to help them avoid games with those traits. Some others, Andy Kitkowski say, really like games with those traits so it's handy for them too. It's useful shorthand.

At the end though, there's no clear line. There's no point where one sort of game ends and the next begins. Buffy let's you edit scenes using drama points, but I've played it and as far as I'm concerned it's an utterly standard rpg. Fiasco is full on storytelling where the players act more as authors than participating through their characters. That's not a standard rpg. Where's the line between the two? There isn't one, there's just points along a gradient.

Quote from: vytzka;676660I'd love to talk about Tenra Bansho Zero on therpgsite but I'm not allowed to talk about it in the roleplaying games section so I have to do it elsewhere. It is a regrettable situation, I agree.

Yeah, I agree. Since DW was "released" there has finally been some good discussion on the Main Games forums about its approach to initiative, with almost none of the dirty hippy game outcry and absolutely none of the crying over it's definition.

I hope that TBZ may get another look at some stage, because I would love to talk about it here on this site too. At the moment, I don't because all discussion I want to have about it is RPG related.

Quote from: vytzka;676660I'd love to talk about Tenra Bansho Zero on therpgsite but I'm not allowed to talk about it in the roleplaying games section so I have to do it elsewhere. It is a regrettable situation, I agree.

Quote from: Skywalker;676973I hope that TBZ may get another look at some stage, because I would love to talk about it here on this site too. At the moment, I don't because all discussion I want to have about it is RPG related.

If you really want to talk about TBZ, then there's not a gawddamned thing preventing you from starting a thread in this forum and doing so.

However, it seems like you'd both rather talk about your butthurt over where the game is discussed on this one website than actually talk about the game, so your lamentations are just so many ridiculous crocodile tears.