Quote from: vytzka;607457Or it might be

dun dun dun

a joke.

NO, IT CANNOT BE BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR AND THAT IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607640Boy, they sure do deny it here.

Mate, it is a matter of degree.

Quote from: Imperator;607792NO, IT CANNOT BE BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR AND THAT IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Oh Pundit is very much at war I just can't say the same about Kitkowski I'm afraid.

Quote from: vytzka;607795Oh Pundit is very much at war I just can't say the same about Kitkowski I'm afraid.

It's easy to win a war if you're the only actual combatant and you get to define your own victory conditions.

It's harder to make anyone else care.

Also you can't win either because then Eurasia will no longer be at war with Oceania and all sort of problems develop.

I mean TECHNICALLY according to Pundit he already won against the Forge. But the princess is in another castle and so we have Storygamer witch hunts and stay tuned.

Quote from: soviet;607642I don't think anyone denies that storygame RPGs have some differences from traditional RPGs. What people argue against is the idea that this difference is so big that storygames are a different type of thing altogether, such that comparing D&D to Burning Wheel is the same as comparing D&D to Magic the Gathering, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Halo, or mountaineering.

Wait a second, Burning Wheel is considered a Story Game? Narrative-fueled, sure, but you could play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's The Enemy Within in Burning Wheel. The Beliefs, Instincts and Traits are more of a wishlist than commands. The only narrative forced mechanics in Burning Wheel I see are Circles.

Hell, to me D&D and Burning Wheel are perfect examples of traditional roleplaying games. They have focused progress (gold=xp and skill use), an implied setting in the rules without spelling out the details and strong emphasis on character actions instead of narrative flow.

Quote from: vytzka;607816I mean TECHNICALLY according to Pundit he already won against the Forge. But the princess is in another castle and so we have Storygamer witch hunts and stay tuned.

History will teach us that Patton had Rommel, Grant had Lee and Pundit had Edwards.

But let's rejoice with TBZ's last update: new, much better looking, improved and corrected PDFs (I've just downloaded them) AND the files are going to be send to printers imminently.

Shit, I almost forgot.

To the download-mobile!

Quote from: Frundsberg;607901History will teach us that Patton had Rommel, Grant had Lee and Pundit had Edwards.

But let's rejoice with TBZ's last update: new, much better looking, improved and corrected PDFs (I've just downloaded them) AND the files are going to be send to printers imminently.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

Quote from: Crabbyapples;607900Wait a second, Burning Wheel is considered a Story Game?

Well, I think this is part of the dance that goes on here. 'Storygames' are railed against in the vaguest possible terms and sent off to Other Games forum as 'not proper roleplaying'. When there is a discussion about how storygames do terrible thing X, or don't do awesome thing Y, and someone says 'Well hang on, in fact Dogs/BW/Sorcerer/etc hardly touches X and has loads of Y', the response is 'sure, that game is not really a storygame per se'. But when it comes to where that game is allowed to be discussed, or how much of a communist subversive that game's author and players are, suddenly the label is applied blindly again and with full force. It's a way of maintaining the war without having to deal with any facts.

(Not saying that you are doing any of this BTW Crabbyapples!)

Quote from: soviet;607961Well, I think this is part of the dance that goes on here.

Or the people that say "Game X is an RPG despite strong narrative mechanics" aren't the ones who have any power to actually move threads.

You know, whichever. :rolleyes:

Keep cryin' that river Every.Single.Time though, I'm sure the Pundit really cares.

Quote from: CRKrueger;608024Or the people that say "Game X is an RPG despite strong narrative mechanics" aren't the ones who have any power to actually move threads.

You know, whichever. :rolleyes:

Keep cryin' that river Every.Single.Time though, I'm sure the Pundit really cares.

Sorry, what? I couldn't hear you very well. Take the pundit's cock out of your mouth and try again.

Quote from: soviet;608042Sorry, what? I couldn't hear you very well. Take the pundit's cock out of your mouth and try again.

Or, if you actually read the thread, you'd see that I said TBZ was probably 50/50 and not believing it warranted movement, and not having the ability to do so - Hey, how about that, I didn't move it.  Any organized culture you're blathering about it Pundit doing what he wants on the board he pays for.  What a complete and total surprise.  What isn't a surprise is you coming over yet again to complain anytime anyone suggests any difference whatsoever between RPGs and what you like.

That's why there's no point talking to useless cunts like you.  All you have is your agenda.  As has been seen in many threads, you really can't see the difference between making a decision from the POV of the character and the player because you're not really interested in the roleplaying aspect, it's the narrative part that really gets you going, which is fine, other then your bizarre form of cowardice that has you unable to stand up and say "Yeah this is something different, so what, I like it better".

You're not interested in actually discussing things like Skywalker, you periodically comb the threads, see the Pundit attack your agenda and you show up to throw the flag.  Pure propaganda - pedestrian, predictable, and pathetic.

After a while, you'll crawl back under your rock, and then show up to cry the next time Pundit or Ben does something you don't like like a good little soldier.

{Yawn}

Quote from: CRKrueger;608131Or, if you actually read the thread, you'd see that I said TBZ was probably 50/50 and not believing it warranted movement, and not having the ability to do so - Hey, how about that, I didn't move it.  Any organized culture you're blathering about it Pundit doing what he wants on the board he pays for.  What a complete and total surprise.  What isn't a surprise is you coming over yet again to complain anytime anyone suggests any difference whatsoever between RPGs and what you like.

That's why there's no point talking to useless cunts like you.  All you have is your agenda.  As has been seen in many threads, you really can't see the difference between making a decision from the POV of the character and the player because you're not really interested in the roleplaying aspect, it's the narrative part that really gets you going, which is fine, other then your bizarre form of cowardice that has you unable to stand up and say "Yeah this is something different, so what, I like it better".

You're not interested in actually discussing things like Skywalker, you periodically comb the threads, see the Pundit attack your agenda and you show up to throw the flag.  Pure propaganda - pedestrian, predictable, and pathetic.

After a while, you'll crawl back under your rock, and then show up to cry the next time Pundit or Ben does something you don't like like a good little soldier.

{Yawn}

:slurp: :slurp:

Sorry, what? Didn't hear you again.

Anyway, this is my position:

• I agree that storygame RPGs are different from more traditional RPGs.
• I think nonetheless that they are both types of RPGs.
  
• I do not think that when you play a storygame you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the player. At least, I don't do that, and nor does anyone else in my group, and nor I suspect do most people who talk about these games online.
• I do not think that when you play a traditional RPG you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the character. At least, I don't do that, and nor does anyone else in my group, and nor I suspect do most people who talk about these games online.
• I would agree that storygame play involves slightly less character POV stuff than traditional RPG play, but I think the difference is far less than is sometimes claimed. The significant majority of storygame play, in my experience, is still conducted from an in character point of view. If you were to watch me and my group play Other Worlds, you would not see it as something fundamentally different to what I expect you and your group do when playing, I dunno, D&D. The details vary but the core activity remains the same - speaking dialogue, describing actions, rolling dice.
• By storygames I mean stuff like Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, and my own small game Other Worlds. Different from D&D, Shadowrun, or Vampire? Sure. Different enough to be a whole new category of thing that must be kept separate for fear of contamination? No.
• For the record I like both types of RPGs. I'm currently GMing a storygame I wrote called Other Worlds. Before that over the last year I have played Shadowrun, WFRP 2nd edition, D&D 4e, and D&D 'Next', and GMed AD&D 2e.

If you want to have an actual conversation about any of that I am fully prepared to take part.

TBZ isn't 50/50. It's 100% an rpg. That's it.

If DnD had a 'death box', it wouldn't invalidate everything else in the game that makes it an rpg.

Quote from: soviet;608144If you want to have an actual conversation about any of that I am fully prepared to take part.

Sure, why not?  Roleplaying is all about playing pretend, so I'll pretend you're actually here to have a conversation.
 

Quote from: soviet;608144I agree that storygame RPGs are different from more traditional RPGs.

Agreeing with self-evident truths in an attempt to paint oneself as rational.  Standard JC-level opening.  So far so good.

Quote from: soviet;608144I think nonetheless that they are both types of RPGs.

You specifically said "Storygame RPGs", do you think all Storygames are always RPGs or are you drawing a distinction between "Storygame RPGs" and "Storygames"?

Quote from: soviet;608144I do not think that when you play a storygame you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the player.

Again, a self-evident truth, as anyone claiming that is a strawman, since no one here ever has.

Quote from: soviet;608144I do not think that when you play a traditional RPG you make decisions entirely from the point of view of the character.

Again, a self-evident truth, as anyone claiming that is a strawman, since no one here ever has.

Quote from: soviet;608144I would agree that storygame play involves slightly less character POV stuff than traditional RPG play, but I think the difference is far less than is sometimes claimed. The significant majority of storygame play, in my experience, is still conducted from an in character point of view.

What percentages do you assign to "Slightly" and "Majority"?

Quote from: soviet;608144If you were to watch me and my group play Other Worlds, you would not see it as something fundamentally different to what I expect you and your group do when playing, I dunno, D&D. The details vary but the core activity remains the same - speaking dialogue, describing actions, rolling dice.

Either a very specious argument used for deliberate misrepresentation (as twofish frequently used it) or as I think you are using it, points to the key difference between our viewpoints.  If you think roleplaying or not is something you can tell by watching what is going on, you're completely missing the point.  Roleplaying is an internal activity.  What I say, doesn't matter.  Whether my decisions are occuring from the POV of my character or me is something only I know, as that thought process is occurring in my brain alone.

Take for example the earlier conversation between FVB and myself where he was saying if his character was captured by gangbangers, he would consider it a dick move for them to kill his character because that wouldn't make for a very good story.  Roleplaying is a state of mind, and the state of mind behind that statement by FVB is not roleplaying, sorry.  

Either I'm doing something because my character would do it, or I have another motive, tactical, narrative, or socially based.  Any single game is not binary RPG or STG, however, every single decision is.  I'm either making the decision from the POV of the character or I'm adding in other factors.  If the core structures of the game, the base engine of the mechanics forces you to constantly consider things from outside the POV of your character, then it's really hard to see how you can logically consider it a RPG, even if it does contain roleplaying.

Even if you contend that any amount of roleplaying means the game should be considered an RPG, then there should be a qualifier to designate what other non-rpg factors go into the game mechanics.  In other words, a Tactical RPG, Narrative RPG, Literary RPG, whatever the hell you want to come up with but not just "RPG".

Quote from: soviet;608144By storygames I mean stuff like Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, and my own small game Other Worlds. Different from D&D, Shadowrun, or Vampire? Sure. Different enough to be a whole new category of thing that must be kept separate for fear of contamination? No.

Different enough for an adjective so that if I love or hate narrative mechanics I actually have enough information to know wtf I'm buying?

Quote from: soviet;608144For the record I like both types of RPGs. I'm currently GMing a storygame I wrote called Other Worlds. Before that over the last year I have played Shadowrun, WFRP 2nd edition, D&D 4e, and D&D 'Next', and GMed AD&D 2e.

For the record I've tried and have even enjoyed some narrative games, enough to the point that I can identify when I am making decisions as a player and when I am making decisions as a character.