Quote from: jhkim;1073022I would say Pundit's ideas should be given roughly the same amount of respect that he gives to story gamers, 4E fans, and other gamers he disagrees with.

I appreciate his free speech stance on this site, and he has some ideas that I agree with - but that doesn't mean that he is owed any more respect than what he gives.

- Doesn't ban people for disagreeing with him
- Tries to actually make arguments supporting his position
- Makes videos that explain his point and encourage discussion

I guarantee you none of the people you mentioned do any of those things other than Pundit. So yeah, if you're gonna bitch about a dude on his own forum for expressing his ideas, under no threat of repercussion, that sort of reminds me of all the dipshits who hate America so much they protest the very foundation of the country but aren't thrown in the gulags because of all the freedom they have specifically based on what they're protesting. He's not forcing anyone to think like him, he just thinks storygames aren't RPGs BECAUSE THEY AREN'T. They're some other form of entertainment, and honestly I don't even think some of them qualify as actual games. You can like all the hippie games you want and "play" them all you want, but I agree with him that they're not RPGs. They have appropriated the name RPG because it was easier to convince people they should play those sorts of games over grognard bullshit like D&D because they're better! The argument should be "this is more fun than D&D", not that it's better. D&D is the Platonic ideal of an RPG and anything that deviates too much from how it is played is no longer an RPG, by definition. Like it or not, but D&D created the RPG genre, so it gets to decide what an RPG is. And just like wargamers didn't want D&D called a wargame, roleplayers shouldn't want storygames to be called RPGs.

RE: the story nonsense...I don't play a game to tell a story. I write a story to tell a story, or just tell them. A game isn't played for any other reason than to play the game; when mentally deficient people start putting WAY too much emphasis on the outcome of a game, you get soccer hooligan riots, burning down Philly after the Superbowl, and people on rpg.net crying about how their beloved Mary Sue character died in D&D. I mean, fuck...Jack Chick was right.

Quote from: kythriExactly what success would that be?

From the early 2000s to nowadays, there were a fair share of popular and/or influential games like Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc.

I think it's a consensus at this point their main proponents *coff, Edwards, coff* were a bunch of douchbags, but the actual games had interesting ideas that caught on and are seen to this day.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1073098I think it is about immersion though.  Stories only came about once these rpg developers started to make novels in the pursuit of more money.  

  I don't know; didn't Stafford view it as 'participation in myth' to some degree long before Dragonlance came on the scene? That's an honest question; the Gloranthan side of the hobby is something I know a very little about.

QuoteLet us not forget rpgs were made to represent a team of specialists that do missions while the main armies do battles in war games.  No one thinks war games are about making stories.  Am I right about that?

  The first video game was made to simulate tennis. Does that mean that video games need to be simulations of sports, or even to keep score, to be 'authentic' video games?

  I can see the argument for immersion as the sine qua non of an RPG, but I can also see the argument against it or for a mitigated version--is 'identification' or 'direction' sufficient without immersion, for example?

Quote from: Itachi;1073116From the early 2000s to nowadays, there were a fair share of popular and/or influential games like Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc.

Weird.  I forgot about their success, since I don't ever see them on the shelf at game stores.

Quote from: Itachi;1073116I think it's a consensus at this point their main proponents *coff, Edwards, coff* were a bunch of douchbags, but the actual games had interesting ideas that caught on and are seen to this day.

An interesting idea, even one that survives to be implanted into other games, does not a successful game make.

Quote from: kythri;1073118Weird. I forgot about their success, since I don't ever see them on the shelf at game stores.

In the age of internet, measuring success solely by physical stores seems... weird, to say the least.

QuoteAn interesting idea, even one that survives to be implanted into other games, does not a successful game make.

Yep, the word you want is "influential", here.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1073108I'm also not a fan of the Forge. I think that they did a lot of damage to civilized discourse in the hobby with their half-baked theories. Those theories have become so entrenched into any kind of conversation in the RPG community, that it overrides whatever point that someone who has never even encountered those theories before tries to make. They are that viral and destructive.

Care to elaborate on the Forge theories? I ask out of genuine curiosity.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073117I don't know; didn't Stafford view it as 'participation in myth' to some degree long before Dragonlance came on the scene? That's an honest question; the Gloranthan side of the hobby is something I know a very little about.

If so it must be a horrible story because we have a medieval king with access to dimension magic who travels to Earth just to eat pizza and drink soda.  If that is going by any mythos, then I guess your right.

Look back then they didn't give a shit about stories.  It was when they were making money they started to care about stories because they wanted those book sales.  The 80's were a good time for the fantasy genre.  Well before the Satanic Panic kicked in.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073117The first video game was made to simulate tennis. Does that mean that video games need to be simulations of sports, or even to keep score, to be 'authentic' video games?

I see your point there, but how do you feel about walking simulators, or games with so little game play that it might as well be a movie?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1073117I can see the argument for immersion as the sine qua non of an RPG, but I can also see the argument against it or for a mitigated version--is 'identification' or 'direction' sufficient without immersion, for example?

Would you please rephrase that question.  Are you asking me to counter my own arguments?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1073123If so it must be a horrible story because we have a medieval king with access to dimension magic who travels to Earth just to eat pizza and drink soda.  If that is going by any mythos, then I guess your right.

How is this related to Glorantha? I don't think I got your point.

QuoteI see your point there, but how do you feel about walking simulators, or games with so little game play that it might as well be a movie?

You mean the likes of Dear Esther, What Remains of Edith Finch, Hellblade, Soma, Journey, etc? I'm an avid videogamer that believes Dark Souls is the best thing in the last 20 years, and yet all those "walking sims" are all videogames to me (and good ones at that - What Remains of Edith Finch is amazing).

Are you saying those are not videogames?

Even in videogames, there is a strong distinction between "games" and "sims", and has been since at least Civilization I versus Sim City.  (Probably before that, but it was only about then I was paying attention.)  I believe that both designers referred to those types of "sims" as being "toys"--and both meant it as, at worst, a neutral description of how they were played (with), and probably more positive than that.  Civ I is consciously more "game" than "toy" and Sim City was the opposite, but each dabbled a bit in the realm of the other.  

I appreciated it, because it was exactly the "toy" aspect of Sim City that was such a turn-off for me, and allowed me to avoid those types of games later.  Not a small thing given how much such games could cost then.  I didn't hold that against the designer of Sim City and the fans of the games.  Rather, I appreciated their honesty that saved me money and time.

I don't know what that says exactly about this conversation, but seems relevant somehow.

Quote from: jhkim;1073103You're saying that any lack of immersion makes a game a story game, though - which seems pretty broad.

Top Secret, say, has Fame points and Fortune points - which are meta-game resources that you can use to save yourself. I think that's one of the earliest explicitly metagame mechanics. Later developments in the early 1980s include James Bond 007 (with priority use of Hero points), Ars Magica (using Whimsy Cards), and Champions (point system restrictions).

Are these story games, in your mind?

Is there any in setting explanation for these meta points?  If yes, then they are not meta points your game is a rpg.

Finally can the GM remove the player from his immersion and do things that would counter the interests of his character?  If no, then your in a traditional rpg.

Quote from: Itachi;1073124How is this related to Glorantha? I don't think I got your point.

They didn't care about the setting consistency because to them it was just a game among friends.  If this was a true story that carried mythos the makers of that setting would put more thought and care into their product.  Which I will admit it doesn't help my immersion argument, but it doesn't help out the story argument as well.

Quote from: Itachi;1073124Are you saying those are not videogames?

Is there a lose condition?  If no, then it isn't a game.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1073126Even in videogames, there is a strong distinction between "games" and "sims", and has been since at least Civilization I versus Sim City.  (Probably before that, but it was only about then I was paying attention.)  I believe that both designers referred to those types of "sims" as being "toys"--and both meant it as, at worst, a neutral description of how they were played (with), and probably more positive than that.  Civ I is consciously more "game" than "toy" and Sim City was the opposite, but each dabbled a bit in the realm of the other.  

I appreciated it, because it was exactly the "toy" aspect of Sim City that was such a turn-off for me, and allowed me to avoid those types of games later.  Not a small thing given how much such games could cost then.  I didn't hold that against the designer of Sim City and the fans of the games.  Rather, I appreciated their honesty that saved me money and time.

I don't know what that says exactly about this conversation, but seems relevant somehow.

What it says is that there are different genres inside the videogame hobby.
 
- Strategy
- Tactical combat
- Simulations
- Toys/Puzzles
- Shooters
- Interactive fiction
etc.

Quote from: sureshot;1073121Care to elaborate on the Forge theories? I ask out of genuine curiosity.

In a word? No.

I have never actually read those theories. I only know of them by peripheral reputation.

Being accused of supporting something I have never read, nor really wanted to pay attention to, is infuriating.

Quote from: Itachi;1073119In the age of internet, measuring success solely by physical stores seems... weird, to say the least.

Given that the vast majority of inhabitants of RPG forums are shitheels who don't even play (this forum being an exception), is it really all that weird?

Physical stores are still the primary gateway to new players, and I'd posit that most game stores see more actual players than most Internet forums do.

Quote from: Itachi;1073119Yep, the word you want is "influential", here.

I wouldn't use that word, either.  An idea, even a great one, isn't necessarily "influential" on anything other than perhaps it's own inclusion into another work.  I don't consider most (any?  all?) of those games named all that influential on anything.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1073129Is there a lose condition? If no, then it isn't a game.

Then RPGs where you play imortals/gods, or RPGs with no death on the table, or even those with dinasty-play or troupe play where it's assumed you'll always keep playing with some character, are not games?

Or videogames like Europa Universalis - where there's no concept of death and you set your own end goals and/or losing conditions- are also not games?

I think by now it's clear videogames involve digital/electronic experiences in a wide sense.