Quote from: Madprofessor;914306First of all, YOU made a claim - that the original game included OoC mechanics.  That is a claim, and you either cannot back it up because you have no evidence, or you will not back it up because you're really just a troll whose only purpose is to attack people and attempt to destroy and derail their conversations.

Second, I did not make a claim.  I rephrased your claim as a question because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt despite your idiotic language, and because I wanted to give people (including you) a chance to make a reasonable evidence based response to your claim.

Third, nobody is "excluding" anybody.  Chess is not the same as rugby. Yet, they are both games.  It is helpful to everyone that we have different words for these different games (or else our rugby fields might be littered with the corpses of unsuspecting chess players who showed up to the "game").  By defining, we are giving people greater power to communicate accurately, understand and choose.  It is an effort to reduce conflict, not increase it.

Fourth, if your not a troll and I have misjudged you, you have the power to prove it by acting like a decent human being.

You just compared chess and rugby and claim I am the idiot?

You not once, not twice, but three times 'call me out'  but I'm the troll?

Quote from: Manzanaro;914454There's a reason Tolkien doesn't include orc children in LotR.

Probably not the only reason though. Goblins (and Orcs) originated as a corruption of elves by Morgoth in the First Age. We don't see any elf children either. Under certain circumstances goblin kids may be pretty rare. Note that in the Hobbit, the Goblins recognized Orcrist and Glamdring calling them Beater and Biter. Those two swords were named before the fall of Gondolin in the First Age and were lost a long time ago (can't recall when, but probably before the fall of the Witch King of Angmar so 1000+ years.)

Quote from: Maarzan;914467With don´t treat others in a way you don´t want to be treated yourselve there ist probably a base for universal moral - as long as this works both ways.

Maybe one of the bible scholars can clarify, but I don't think the word "other" has the same meaning in the bible as it usually does in English today, i.e. in English today all people fall into the category of "other people."  In many cultures strangers from another culture weren't necessarily considered to be "other people." For lots of cultures you had these categories: (1) family; (2) in-group (village, clan, tribe, polis, cultural grouping and later nation state); (3) out-group (people from another clan, tribe, village, polis, or cultural group). You were expected to show preference for people in your family, but rules against murder applied to everyone in the wider in-group. Guest obligation typically applied to people from your in-group, but often did not apply to people from the out-group. One thing we repeatedly see with the rise of larger and larger groups of people is the extension membership in the in-group. Until you get to what we have today where it is common to see the in-group as at least my country/culture and often as all humanity. In the 20th century we even see some people making extensions of the in-group to all sentient life, all primates, all cute and fuzzy animals, etc.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914468Why would we have to be careful about judging things like human sacrifice and slavery?

Being an unpaid devil's advocate...seriously that bastard is cheap let me take a stab at a counter.

In appears that in some times and places the sacrifices may have been volunteers. We praise martyrs to a cause we believe in our people who give their life to save another person's life. How is either different than a person who voluntary sacrifices their life as part of a cultural ritual thought to ensure that the sun rises, the rain falls, and the crops grow? Also in a number of cultures suicide is considered an acceptable action under certain circumstances. Isn't that too a form of voluntary human sacrifice or martyrdom?

Slavery isn't the same in all times and places. In some times and places, slavery was a status that one could enter or leave. In Rome for example, slaves could earn money, make investments, and many (but nowhere near most) slaves purchased their freedom. And in the ancient world slavery was not based on being from some place, culture, or race but was originally the outcome of capture in warfare or of selling oneself or family to pay for debt. Anyone could become a slave. All that was required was defeat in a military conflict or severe economic reversals. So slavery was an equal opportunity legal status. And if we look at combat, what is the alternative to enslaving one's enemies? Slavery was sometimes the lesser of two evils. Kill them or capture and enslave them were two traditional alternatives. (A third alternative was maiming so they couldn't take up arms again, see the supposed origin of the British V-for-Victory. Frequently this condemned the victim to a retched life of begging and poverty or placed them as a dependent and a burden on their family. And if resources were scared, forced the victim and family to a cruel choice of who to feed.) Nobody in the ancient world really saw being a slave as a good thing (often defeat in war and enslavement was deeply and profoundly humiliating, see also Roman views when one might fall on one's sword.)

Quote from: 1of3;914428You start at the wrong end.

Wrong in what sense" Wrong for what purpose? Recall the goal is to characterize games, not the people who play the game.

QuoteSo what's a storygame then? A storygame is a game that talks like a storygamer.

That's a vague and not particularly helpful definition. Despite starting in a different place, you didn't end up in a better place.

Quote from: Sommerjon;914457You just compared chess and rugby and claim I am the idiot?

You not once, not twice, but three times 'call me out'  but I'm the troll?

Those are rhetorical questions, right?

Quote from: Bren;914483Recall the goal is to characterize games, not the people who play the game.

But I think most people are ignoring the history.

There was this game called D&D.  It was kind of a wargame but kind of not, sort of like a hyper-focused skirmish game but unlike Fight in the Skies or Korns you could do stuff OTHER than fight battles.

Then some other games kind of like it came out.  And people continued to look for a categorical name for these games.

Then somebody called one a "role playing game" and everybody jumped on the term.  Not because there was some rigid scientific definition, but because it was a handy term.  If somebody had come up with "character game" or "microskirmish game" or "lifepath game" first, there is an excellent chance that the name would have stuck.  That is the crux of my point; it's a name that just popped up, and stuck.

And for the next several decades people published "role playing games" by the simple expedient of publishing a game and calling it a "role playing game."  That's why people saying "A role playing game is one in which," are doing nothing other than stating their personal opinion, and no two are alike.

There was no "central authority of RPG labeling" or other shit like that.  I could have published WRG ancients 7th edition and called it a "role playing game" and nobody could have stopped me.  There may have been informal pushback of the "what the fuck, asshole" variety, but nobody could have told me to "not call it a RPG" and made it stick.

A "role playing game," in the only practical definition, is a game that the creator calls a "role playing game."  Same with story games; somebody had a game that was "kind of like a RPG but not" and they wanted a term for it, and they came up with "story game."

There IS no rigid definition, and never has been.  I think the probability of evolving useful definitions of either term is extremely unlikely, since both terms came about in a community with the mindset of "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914526But I think most people are ignoring the history.

If history tells us anything, it is that most people ignore it most of the time.*

As regards which other names might have stuck...hard to say given we don't really have a control group to test. I note that the term had other applications at the time in the counseling/psychology field which was itself reaching popular consciousness at the same time. I suspect that gave it a bit of a leg up as a term that sounded like it meant something. That being said,

"character game" doesn't seem bad. All those games we tend to identify now as roleplaying game had one (or more) characters who were the object of the player's play.

"microskirmish game" I think this was doomed to fall out of use once D&D became a popular game. For many of the same reasons that the ability to properly conduct a skirmish dropped out of the list of required skills to play an RPG.

"lifepath game" would have been a natural fit to games like Traveller that actual featured a life path. It seems a bit less natural to games that don't include something similar as part of the character creation even though the rest of the game follows the life of one or more characters. Personally, I expect the existing popularity of  The Game of Life, would have made that name too similar to a kids game for girls for the name of a game played predominantly by adolescent (or younger) males. Of course, had it caught on, the hobby might have had an easier time expanding the number of female players in the early days.

Of course all of this is a bit of post hoc rationalization. But post hoc is really all we can do at this point.

Role-playing Game as a moniker for a game in which you pretend you are a single character doesn't to me sound like it just fell out of the sky and it could as easily have been called Man-to-Man Wargaming or Microskirmishing.  Adventure Gaming, maybe.   But what characterized early D&D as separate from wargames was the focus on single-character and doing things other than wargaming.  So considering the term Role-playing was already being used in other circles for "playing a role" I kinda doubt using that term for a game in which you "played a role" was a random lottery win or triple lightning strike.

Anytime someone creates something new, there isn't a name for it until someone makes one up.  Forty years later and you'd have me believe there's no language we can use to define the difference between Amber and Fiasco?  Between MERP and TOR?  Between Marvel FASERIP and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying?  Between OD&D and My Life With Master?  Between AD&D and The Mountain Witch? Bullshit.

There will never be a hard definition of any of these terms.  That would require getting a large percentage of gamers to agree on something that is very vague and subjective.  It's hard enough to get a handful of them to agree on what the plain text of a rule book says.

Quote from: yosemitemike;914558There will never be a hard definition of any of these terms.  That would require getting a large percentage of gamers to agree on something that is very vague and subjective.  It's hard enough to get a handful of them to agree on what the plain text of a rule book says.

What's your point?  That you see no need in this discussion?  So noted. Farewell, we'll continue without you.

Quote from: yosemitemike;914416I don't remember anything either but it has been a long time since I played either of those systems.  Maybe someone could give five concrete examples of such rules?

I think you are right. We do need some concrete examples posted here.  I just haven't had time.

QuoteThere will never be a hard definition of any of these terms. That would require getting a large percentage of gamers to agree on something that is very vague and subjective.  

I think the point here is to get away from "vague and subjective."  We're not talking about what people like, we're talking about what mechanics do - I think that can be done with a high degree of objectivity.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya
But I think most people are ignoring the history...

I get all of that, and assumed this was common knowledge (probably a bad assumption on my part). The term, RPG, was not scientifically constructed, it's just a name, for something new, that stuck.  It stuck because its a natural fit and defines what you do in this sort of game well.  Now, decades later, we have thousands of games, many with new, innovative and conflicting ideas, trying fit under the RPG umbrella - sometimes for nothing more than commercial reasons.  I am all for inclusion of people, but the term doesn't handle the wide scope of games very well.  It doesn't communicate the differences.  The field has grown broader than the term.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914551Anytime someone creates something new, there isn't a name for it until someone makes one up.  Forty years later and you'd have me believe there's no language we can use to define the difference between Amber and Fiasco?  Between MERP and TOR?  Between Marvel FASERIP and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying?  Between OD&D and My Life With Master?  Between AD&D and The Mountain Witch? Bullshit.

Good thing I'm not saying that then, isn't it?

What I AM saying is that we are creating, not discovering, a definition for these terms.  There is not, and never has been, a Platonic ideal of "a game with these elements is a role playing game."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914625What I AM saying is that we are creating, not discovering, a definition for these terms.  

I see what you are saying. On the other hand, the term, "storygame" is also a term that evolved somewhat naturally and has entered our vocabulary.  I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what is it, and how is it different? In any case, I think there is more than one way to approach a definition of something new.

QuoteThere is not, and never has been, a Platonic ideal of "a game with these elements is a role playing game."

"Good thing I'm not saying that then, isn't it?"

I thought earlier in this thread that we had all pretty well agreed that there was a spectrum, and that no game was a pure form of [insert label here]. Hopefully we don't have to go over the same ground again.

My point is that we have to define the terms FIRST.  They aren't pre existing terms.  Dungeon World plays differently from OD&D, no doubt.  But we have to realize we are attempting to agree on a definition; there has been a lot of "It has this and that therefore it is a roleplaying game" (not necessarily from you).  There is no rigid taxonomy, and first we need to agree that we are trying to create one.  {insert label here} is only useful after defining {label}.

The problem is this cant be solved. Why? Because anyone can come along and slap RPG, or Storygame, or whatever on their game if they think they can get more sales.

Games Workshop did it with Space Hulk. Right on the box front. Others have done simmilar because their definition of RPG is... "the units have stats" No. Im not joking. A recent one was "Well the spaceship has stats. So its an RPG!"

Yes, it's true anybody can use "RPG" or "storygame" just by using it, and that there is no objective definition.  That is indeed the point I've been trying to make.

But on the other hand, we CAN derive a definition that we can agree is useful for our purposes, and would very much like to see that happen.  But my gut feeling is that it's still rather vague and I'm not sure what to do about it.  I've seen people play OD&D with an emphasis on "building a good story."  But that doesn't make OD&D a story game, because they were adding their own emphasis to the game.  Beyond that it starts to get conceptually fuzzy to me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914726Beyond that it starts to get conceptually fuzzy to me.

Have another beer. I find a beer always helps my conceptual fuzziness.

Well, we kind of have two different axes of definition.  One based on mechanics, one based on player motivation or goal.  Does Storygame lie at the intersection of these axes?

For Example - A Storygame is a game the primary purpose of which is to create a collaborative story and that contains OOC gaming mechanics designed to determine under what conditions and restrictions and to what extent, the player may create the story.