Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1083061Spot on !

But you realize you're not allowed to make sense of complex matters in an intelligible and well-articulated way, aren't you ? This is the geeky gaming interwabs for Frell's sake - we're not supposed to wholeheartedly agree on anything ever ;-) !

Because I cannot see it being spot on at all. Role-playing scenarios do have victory conditions. Let's have a look at one of the Pundit's adventures, DAA1 - The Ghost of Jack Cade on London Bridge. To quote:
"The PCs should be encouraged to investigate the rumors about Jack Cade's ghost. After asking questions (and maybe asking them to the wrong persons, which may lead them into ) the PCs should eventually see the ghost at night. In , the PCs then should eventually come to find and and recover and . The adventure will then be able to continue with a sequel outlined at the end of this scenario."

I fail to categorize this scenario as anything other than having victory conditions. If you find NPC Y and do Z, thereby recovering A and B, you get to feel like you have "beat the scenario."

So, no, we won't agree on this.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083068Because I cannot see it being spot on at all. Role-playing scenarios do have victory conditions.

Let's cut the bullshit, the "victory conditions" of roleplaying are exactly the same as "victory conditions" of life, the achievement of some goal that the individual or group have set for themselves.

And like the "victory conditions" of life part of the appeal of roleplaying games is their freeform nature in setting "victory condition".

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083068I fail to categorize this scenario as anything other than having victory conditions. If you find NPC Y and do Z, thereby recovering A and B, you get to feel like you have "beat the scenario."

Or like in life you find something more interesting and the situation regarding Jack Cade's ghost never get resolved.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083068So, no, we won't agree on this.

So when does a roleplaying campaign end?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047Well, everybody is entitled to their own set of definitions, especially in controversial matters.

So you are saying you have no effective counter point to my chain of reasoning and have to resort to saying that "It's only Rob's opinion so why does it matter".

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047And yet both the publisher as well as wikipedia (plus rpg.net) tell me it's a role-playing game, so let's just say that your above definitions are heterodox.

Anybody can make a claim but is it backed by the evidence?

Author's intent and what they write out about is important because what define what a game is largely one of focus. But focus is not determine by what the author says but what they choose to write about within their game.

So just because Jason Morningstar says it a roleplaying game doesn't mean it is one. Do determine what kind of game Fiasco is, you have to look within and see what Jason Morningstar writes about.

I have a copy of Fiasco and played it over the years. if you want to talk about specific points I will be happy too. In the interest of brevity, it quite obvious that it is about collaborating on creating a narrative about capers using a pool of dice. That there may or may not be roleplaying a character in the same sense as D&D and other tabletop RPGs. It more about going through the Act One, The Tilt, Act Two, Aftermath structure and using the dice pool to work up a narrative as a group.

It is not about pretending to be a character part of a group executing a caper. Something that reinforced by the fact there no referee, thus no fog of war, the lack of free form structure for the events that unfold, and the fact that much of the game will involve description not characterization or roleplaying.

For example on page 10 talking about scenes

QuoteIt's also possible a scene won't involve any role-playing at all – just description. If that's what's called for, there's no need to shoe-horn role-playing into the scene.

So despite the claims of the author, or what wikipedia says it is not a game like D&D, Traveller, Champions, GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, etc. Nor it about achieving victory conditions either cooperatively like Shadowrun Crossfire, or competitively like Panzerblitz. It not a roleplaying game because it not focused on pretending to be characters within a setting. Rather it focused on creating narratives about capers who happen to involved characters.

It clear from it focus on collaborating on a narrative that it is a storygame.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047If they were clear categories, then it should be uncontroversial.

Oh there is another area of human creativity where things are settled after fifty years of development? Film has had a hundred years of development and people are still sorting it out. And theater has had thousands of years and yet things are still not settled.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047But it isn't. It's where you personally draw the line. Others may draw the line differently. That's often enough the case when two classes of entities both have characteristics in common as well as distinguishing properties.

My job when sharing how I view things to explain how I arrived at my conclusion in such a way, that one can apply it themselves. I don't expect being able to apply my reasoning means there is agreement. Only that there is understanding of what I am getting at.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1083047Reminder: I personally don't care if calling extremely narrativist RPGs storygames as a separate category of games becomes orthodox.

It only important when people are trying to find games like X. One part marketing in order to sell product, and one part finding other hobbyists to play with. People have strong opinions from both positions.

If one has an solid audience with a reputation, or one has a stable group to play with, then being able to find games like X is not an issue. Thus giving rise to disagreement over the importance of categories.

My view both sides are handled by clear communication. What I am looking (or offering) for is X described tersely and clearly.

Quote from: estar;1083026If it is about characters interacting with a setting then it is roleplaying game.
If it a about achieving victory condition either cooperatively or competitive then it is a wargame
If it is about creating a collabrative narrative then it is a type of storygame

That's where, as we discussed before though, the spectrum comes in. What happens when each of these conditions is met in a single game?

A D&D campaign can be all about interacting with the setting, but the Quest has a clear victory condition that will mark the end of the campaign, and it was designed to fit the character's backstories, with the player's input, to create a collaborative narrative.

So if these are treated as binary conditions then D&D is now a Roleplaying game that is a Wargame that is a Storygame. All depending on what the players and DM want to do with it. And the game was explicitly designed (at least 3e and onward) to support all of the above.

(I make this post only to say that while you can delineate these clear categories, that will not stop confusion on any given instance of the categories. Or these terms need to be a bit more rigorously defined.)

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097That's where, as we discussed before though, the spectrum comes in. What happens when each of these conditions is met in a single game?

A D&D campaign can be all about interacting with the setting, but the Quest has a clear victory condition that will mark the end of the campaign, and it was designed to fit the character's backstories, with the player's input, to create a collaborative narrative.

Good questions. The reason for each existing as their own centers is that what needed to do each well with proper support is mutually exclusive.  Emphasizing one focus makes the material harder or useless for people focusing on the other aspects.

One central issue is player's agency as their character. Storygames and wargames restrict agency as one's character in favor of other things that are focused on. Which is why games gravitate to various categories.

For example, limiting the players in a tabletop roleplaying campaign to the adventure at hand pushes it away from the center of tabletop roleplaying and more towards the center of wargames. Because in wargames, the default expectation is that one will use the rules of the game in an attempt to achieve the victory conditions of the scenarios.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097A D&D campaign can be all about interacting with the setting, but the Quest has a clear victory condition that will mark the end of the campaign, and it was designed to fit the character's backstories, with the player's input, to create a collaborative narrative.

It not a victory condition in the sense of a wargame. It an achievement of a goal like we do in life.

The narrative that result is a description of what occurred during the campaign and not the same as the deliberate act of creation that storygames enable. Creating backstories together prior to the first session is part of creating the setting of the campaign.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097So if these are treated as binary conditions then D&D is now a Roleplaying game that is a Wargame that is a Storygame. All depending on what the players and DM want to do with it. And the game was explicitly designed (at least 3e and onward) to support all of the above.

It not binary because element of all three are useful to each other.

The playset of Fiasco can serve as a foundation for campaigns or adventures in tabletop roleplaying or scenario in a wargame. The effort put into creating an elaborate D&D setting can enrich a wargame (like Battletech) or serve as a playset for Fiasco.

The mechanics of a wargame like AH's, Stocks & Bonds can be useful to figure out the outcome of something the player wants to do as their character while investing in the stock market, or to figure out the details of a scene in Fiasco.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1083097(I make this post only to say that while you can delineate these clear categories, that will not stop confusion on any given instance of the categories. Or these terms need to be a bit more rigorously defined.)

Or the implications of each need to be explored and understood.

For example in tabletop roleplaying the fundamental mechanic is you describing what you do as your character within the setting and me telling you the results. The rules most say that are tabletop roleplaying games are aides, and tools to make the above easier and consistent.

However it quite common for players to limit themselves only to the actions described by the rules they are using. It is also common for referees limit actions of players as their characters to those only those allowed within the rules.

Which is fine, and can be fun, along as one realizes that is a choice not a requirement to make a tabletop roleplaying campaign work. The only rule that can't be changed and still be labeled as a tabletop roleplaying campaign. That the players is able to describe what they are doing as their character and there is a human referee to describe the result.

You can have other type of roleplaying campaigns where the human referee is substituted with some other mechanism. However roleplaying games as a supercategory is defined by a focus on players playing a character interacting with a setting.

If you change that to players interacting with a setting then it is something else. If you change players playing something other than a character then it is something else.

If you still have players playing a character but doing something else other than interacting with a setting then it is something else.

Perhaps it would be clearer to say that roleplaying games are game where the players plays a character interacting with a setting as their character. But that to me seems a little redundant, however I could be wrong in terms of clarity.

Using the above Tabletop roleplaying games are where players play a character interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

Whereas CRPGS are games where players play a character interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a software algorithm.

And LARPS are games where players play a character interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by the rules of a sport. Or perhaps to be clearer "by the rules governing physical activity".

I think you're splitting frog hairs on that "victory condition vs. goal" thing. Specifically, how is a victory condition distinct from a goal.

Wargame Victory Condition - drive the opposing force from the town.
Role-Playing Goal - drive the opposing force from town.

It should be noted that both Wargames and RPGs can be played in campaign style where the outcome affects future events so even "ends the campaign" is not an actual element of a wargame victory condition.

In other words, I fail to see a meaningful difference between a stated goal and a victory condition except that one is nomenclature commonly used in wargames without some additional caveats.

I'm not arguing that a wargame and RPG are the same (they're not and most people can tell the difference the same way you can identify porn vs. artistic nudity)... just that if the only difference is nomenclature then it's some other element(s) that separates them.

One area worth exploring might be in determining what's a meaningful goal or not. For example, in an RPG I could declare a goal of being the first person to reach X on the battlefield and if I do this I've reached my goal. But in a wargame this goal may or may not count as a victory condition depending on how those are determined.

Chess as the archetypal wargame has the goal of checkmating the opposing king. You can set any other goals you wish, but if you fail in that one you've either lost or drawn the match.

So perhaps... "A wargame has predetermined goals the players cannot change once begun, an RPG has player set goals that can be changed during the game"?

Quote from: Chris24601;1083115I think you're splitting frog hairs on that "victory condition vs. goal" thing. Specifically, how is a victory condition distinct from a goal.

Wargame Victory Condition - drive the opposing force from the town.
Role-Playing Goal - drive the opposing force from town.

It should be noted that both Wargames and RPGs can be played in campaign style where the outcome affects future events so even "ends the campaign" is not an actual element of a wargame victory condition.

In other words, I fail to see a meaningful difference between a stated goal and a victory condition except that one is nomenclature commonly used in wargames without some additional caveats.

Quote from: Chris24601;1083115I'm not arguing that a wargame and RPG are the same (they're not and most people can tell the difference the same way you can identify porn vs. artistic nudity)... just that if the only difference is nomenclature then it's some other element(s) that separates them.

In wargames the achieving victory conditions are the point and the expectation is that one will stay within the rules of the game in order to achieve them. Even when there is a referee, the same expectation is still there. What make a human referee useful to a wargame is that things like fog of water can be implemented properly, and various factors can be considered with more nuance. The victory condition is required for the wargame to work as a game.

In tabletop roleplaying the same victory condition is incidental to being a character within a setting. It may be important for enjoyment but it not necessary for the game to happen.

Quote from: Chris24601;1083115A wargame has predetermined goals the players cannot change once begun, an RPG has player set goals that can be changed during the game"?

Except you can play a character in a tabletop roleplaying who has no goals. Just along for the ride so speak.

My definition implies this compared to wargames. It does not specify any limitation on how a player interacts with a setting except that they do it as their character. That the result are adjudicated by a human referee. Changing goals or having goal are both covered by this.

Quote from: estar;1083092Let's cut the bullshit, the "victory conditions" of roleplaying are exactly the same as "victory conditions" of life, the achievement of some goal that the individual or group have set for themselves.

Sounds more like there's rather a potential difference in the type of victory conditions: the victory conditions of a wargame tend to be militaristic, by nature. But, yeah, in theory you can change victory conditions during actual play of an RPG. In practice? Depends on the GM's flexibility to roll with it.

But generally you have a victory condition in one form or another in RPGs, even if it can be changed by the players.

Quote from: estar;1083093So when does a roleplaying campaign end?

Depends on the campaign. Some are open-ended ("We're just playing Shadowrun scenarios every Friday"), while others may or may not end when reaching a specific goal ("Stop Sauron", "Reach level 20" or "Bring the Jericho Reach fully back into the fold"). Open-ended campaigns are probably less common in wargaming but it's quite possible to do one with, say, Warhammer 40K.

Quote from: Chris24601;1083115Chess as the archetypal wargame has the goal of checkmating the opposing king. You can set any other goals you wish, but if you fail in that one you've either lost or drawn the match.

Seems to me you've just answered your own question:  Checkmate is a victory condition, which determines whether you win, lose, or draw.  Any other side objectives you may choose to pursue during the game are goals, which do not (directly) determine the outcome of the game, though they may influence your experience of it (e.g., feeling good that you succeeded in your personal goal or disappointed that you failed, independently of whether you ultimately won or lost).

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1082939Similarly, Dogs in the Vineyard seems to have that same sort of flavor. It's all about creating a story (that usually ends with everyone killing each other for being heretics), but during play it's driven entirely by immersing yourself in the character.

Pretty sure that's not correct; it's been quite a few years, but from what I recall in DiTV you resolve situations by stating the 'stakes' of what you want to happen, and whoever rolls higher has that thing happen. The roll is completely divorced from any kind of emulation.