I really truly hope I'm not pissing in the pool here, but...

What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."

Am I an outlier, or irrelevant, or just saying the same thing a different way and not realizing it?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918251I really truly hope I'm not pissing in the pool here, but...

What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."

Am I an outlier, or irrelevant, or just saying the same thing a different way and not realizing it?

No, I think that's a perfectly valid outlook.  Pendragon is what I would call a "Genre Roleplaying Game".  It's got all the standard roleplaying mechanics, except it also has some rules and mechanics to, as you said "make the world work a certain way".  However, if you are keeping an eye towards genre, you're not doing it as the character, but as the player, so I think Genre Mechanics count as OOC, but they aren't there necessarily for storytelling purposes.

I see these as being similar but three different things...

• Roleplaying inside the world of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character.

• MERP
• Mongoose, TSR, GURPS Conan
• Keltia
• Mythic Britain

• Roleplaying inside the stories of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character, with an eye towards genre conventions of that fiction.

• The One Ring
• Modiphius Conan
• King Arthur Pendragon

• Roleplaying inside your own stories that you are making inside Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experiencing a character in your own version of that fiction.

• Not a big Storygamer, but I've seen a few of these floating around on the Intarwebz.  Don't remember the names.

[/LIST]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918251I really truly hope I'm not pissing in the pool here, but...

What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."

Am I an outlier, or irrelevant, or just saying the same thing a different way and not realizing it?

Well iv been only 1/2 assed paying attention to this thread but to my way of thinking id say yes you are on to something here.
That is to say yes i think there is a difference in wanting to experiencing a certain world feel and not be interested in telling a story persay.
For example I personally have a want for a game system that would capture the feel of a tales game and one that would capture the feel of megami tensei franchise but im not interested in recreating the storys from those games so id say yes this is different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;918199so that we treat the characters and act as the characters as if they are real.  At least if what you enjoy is roleplaying, and not interactive collaborative storytelling.

I disagree. I have played storygames where we could "feel" the characters as vividly as in any classic rpg. It is just an experience "from the outside" rather than "from the inside", but there is no inferior involvement.

QuoteThose who do seem to always see their particular enjoyment of IC/OOC hybrid games as "normal" or the "truth" and other's preference of IC only means that they can't "accept" what really is occurring.  You see this all the time on this board, with people constantly telling roleplayers that they are collaboratively creating story whether they acknowledge, ie. "accept" it or not.  Or, someone's ability to see OOC mechanics for what they actually are and distinguish between OOC and IC mechanics clearly is referred to as an "allergy".

There is no negativity in that definition of "illusion". Whether you play with intra-diagetic rules or with extra-diagetic ones, when you roleplay your are deluding yourself about being a real someone else (or about telling a story about a real someone else). So, saying that you need to maintain an "illusion" is saying the obvious.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918251What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."

I am not really sure that your approach is non-canonical here. Depending on the exact meaning of your words, I think that you might still be playing the game in the way Greg originally intended it. "Exploration of worlds" is not the same as genre emulation, but the difference is not huge. KAP is a Right to Dream game, so exploring and experiencing the world is still quite a big thing in it. Certanly much more than you would have in, say, DitV or Polaris.

Quote from: CRKrueger;918258

• Roleplaying inside the world of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character.

• MERP
• Mongoose, TSR, GURPS Conan
• Keltia
• Mythic Britain

• Roleplaying inside the stories of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character, with an eye towards genre conventions of that fiction.

• The One Ring
• Modiphius Conan
• King Arthur Pendragon

• Roleplaying inside your own stories that you are making inside Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experiencing a character in your own version of that fiction.

• Not a big Storygamer, but I've seen a few of these floating around on the Intarwebz.  Don't remember the names.

[/LIST]

Sounds like a correct classification. But we are still back to the point: it sounds more a taxonomy of goals than it is of mechanics.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;918314I disagree. I have played storygames where we could "feel" the characters as vividly as in any classic rpg. It is just an experience "from the outside" rather than "from the inside", but there is no inferior involvement.

But, "from the outside" is not the same as "from the inside".  Forget about inferior/superior, they are simply two different things.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;918314Sounds like a correct classification. But we are still back to the point: it sounds more a taxonomy of goals than it is of mechanics.

Agreed, Geezer and Kosmos brought us back around to the intersection of game and goals, but...the definition of the game itself has to include how the mechanics can either enable or hinder those goals...or simply be indifferent.