TheRPGSite

At last, peace can ensue!
My deep insight has finally reached the Forgers!

Look here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24317.0

QuoteP.S.: This highly intense, emotional thing we were doing here shares some roots and methods with the thing the guys next door with the minis and battlemap were doing, but I repeated saying that evening that both are totally different hobbies. That's not to say that one person cannot like both, but they are very, very different.

Bolding mine.

and look here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24288.msg237147#msg237147

Still hoping that your jargon will be excepted in the Forge, eh Sett? Sorry to dissapoint, but I've heard the same shit being spewed on those very boards before. You do realize that you're not the first to try to divide this hobby into different camps?

I mean I heard folks use Kyle's Hack & Thesp styles to differentiate between the types of games they want to play/run. Doesn't mean they are in a different hobby.

Edit: In all my years of gaming I've yet to come across a rule/system which switches on an emotional response in players or turns a game into a deep emotional/thematic experience. If games are such it's because of the players.

Also, Sett's post is a prime example of the disingenuous nature that theory folk always seem to exhibit. I mean all this time, anything from the Forge is wrong, evil etc...but when they write something that fit's into "your" theory - it's the truth. Fuckers.

Regards,
David R

For somebody who thinks they're not in the same hobby, you sure seem to spend a bit of time trawling their forums....

Both the Forgers and Settembrini are wrong. They're quite the same hobbies - as David R said, different styles in the same hobby. I mean, When Harry Met Sally is one kind of movie, and Saving Private Ryan is another kind of movie, but they are both movies. Even, god forbid that I should be forced to watch it again, even Dumb and Dumber is a movie. The style of the thing, even its quality, don't change its essentially movie nature.

Likewise, with rpgs. Just because Settembrini pretends to be an elven princess in a chainmail bikini with a +3 Vorpal Longsword/+6 vs Nasty Hobbitses and Ron Edwards pretends to be an elven princess who wants to break up with her boyfriend but is nervous to tell him it's because of her satanic child abuse, does not mean that they are in different hobbies.

It would be really nice if I could say that I was in a different hobby to these lunatics, whether they're bat penis studying lunatics, or Prussian munchkin lunatics, but I have to be honest with myself and admit that it's basically the same thing we're doing, playing roleplaying games.

Quote from: David RAlso, Sett's post is a prime example of the disingenuous nature that theory folk always seem to exhibit. I mean all this time, anything from the Forge is wrong, evil etc...but when they write something that fit's into "your" theory - it's the truth. Fuckers.

Yep.

QuoteFor somebody who thinks they're not in the same hobby, you sure seem to spend a bit of time trawling their forums....

I was equipped with a linky by one of my loyal readers.

Quote from: Kyle AaronEven, god forbid that I should be forced to watch it again, even Dumb and Dumber is a movie.

Heresy!

I'm with Kyle on this. And I don't even think there's always such a big stylistic difference. I think there's a general gradient that many groups and players slide back and forth through. I think this is true to a greater extent than a lot of people (IME on the indie side of the fence more commonly) would like to admit.

It isn't a different hobby to have characters with personal relationships that are important (or even primary). It sure isn't a different game.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI'm with Kyle on this. And I don't even think there's always such a big stylistic difference. I think there's a general gradient that many groups and players slide back and forth through. I think this is true to a greater extent than a lot of people (IME on the indie side of the fence more commonly) would like to admit.

It isn't a different hobby to have characters with personal relationships that are important (or even primary). It sure isn't a different game.

-Marco

Lord! Marco knows I feel the same! The PCs in our IRC game will spend hours dealing with relationships. Our last session was a dinner with the party's candidate for queen - or rather the candidate for queen who picked the party as her champions - conducted in Elizabethan English, intercut with a couple going variable-G dancing. OTOH, when the bioroid assassins teleport into the cargo bay, it's time to drop the relationships and pick up the weapons.

-clash

Well, the movie analogy doesn't quite work because it relies on seeing movies as objects (artifacts) rather than cultural activities. By that analogy, an RPG and a telephone book are the same thing.

David's on the mark when he suggests that it's people, not rules, that trigger emotional responses. But that doesn't invalidate Sett's claim. Woodcarving and sushi-making are different activities even though both involve knives.

I really think we have to view this whole "thing" in terms of culture and cultural identity. Miniatures and board wargames have distinct but overlapping cultures; RPGs and wargames are the same, so are different genres of RPG activity. You'll never have total separation but I believe there are clusters or clumps of associations--of people, games, and concepts. They're not arbitrary, and the distance from the "center" of one clump to the "center" of another may be a fairly large even though the edges blend together.

Pffft. Muddled mumbling and sloppy semantics to avoid the truth: these are all roleplaying games.

A game is an activity undertaken for amusement which has varying amounts of both choice and chance; the choice or chance may be emergent properties of chance and choice, or vice versa.

Roleplaying is taking on and playing an individual role.

These are all roleplaying games.

That's why the movie analogy is apt. Because what the movie is about and the style and quality of the thing is irrelevant to its essential nature as a movie. Likewise, with rpgs.

If you want to talk about a movie as a "cultural activity" rather than an "object" then you can talk of "movie-making" instead, or "movie discussion groups" if you prefer, but it all comes to the same thing.

Both the Forgers and Settembrini are talking a load of old bollocks. That's because each wants to feel superior to the other, and you can't feel superior without feeling separate. You can't be superior to something you're inextricably a part of.

Like it or not, both lots of geeks are gamer geeks. Of course, plenty of them deserve mocking laughter for other reasons, but...

The tasteless and shallow self-righteousness of the Poster formely known as JimBob is too much for me.

Parting shot: Why in hell, if all is one and one is all, are you not posting at the Forge?

Consider and ponder, and embrace my superiour insight.

Alas, I won´t be able to read your reply, though.

Have fun being yourself!:cool:

I read the Forge post and the thing that strikes most is the poster's rather precious way of writing "Jenga(tm)". TM? Once you have internalised this kind of attitude, it is over. You have no balls.

TheShadow

I think this was supposed to be funny.

Well, you and the poster in question both being German, I'll take your word for it.

TheShadow

Quote from: SettembriniConsider and ponder, and embrace my superiour insight.

Alas, I won´t be able to read your reply, though.

Alas!  We had the chance to embrace his wisdom when he was with us, but now he is gone ... GONE!  And we can never get him back!  :flop:


So, yeah, some people think that if they exclude others from their group then it makes their group greater.  Which is ... funky math.  You don't increase anything by taking things away.  But the urge is strong.

Two jews are rescued from a desert island after being stranded for years.  One of the rescuers asks "Why is it that, between the two of you, you built three synagogues?"  One of the castaways immediately responds "Oh, we needed three.  One for me to go to.  One for him to go to.  And one that neither one of us would be caught dead going to."

Quote from: SettembriniMy deep insight has finally reached the Forgers!

Hunh.  So we can now comfortably lump you into the same camp of over-analytical shitheads.  If that's what you want.

!i!

No, my intricate knowledge and intellect are too great to be lumped with these wannabes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMuddled mumbling and sloppy semantics

Irony!

You like to go on about the excluded middle. There's a complementary fallacy, which is the belief that if there are no absolutes, then everything is the same.

The rhetoric of separation should be scrutinized; however, it isn't always because of a need to feel superior. Although the fear of being labeled inferior is probably what drives some opposition to separation. However separation can be valuable to all parties by helping to focus ideas around various common grounds.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, my intricate knowledge and intellect are too great to be lumped with these wannabes.

So, what you really want is to reside within your own discrete camp of shitheaded over-analysis, satisfied that, through parallel evolution of over-analysis, they arrived at the same shitheaded conclusion as you.

Okay.  Either way, you're exulting over the fact that someone whose opinion you don't respect shares the same opinion as yourself.

!i!

I respect Frank T. (except his cultural relativism regarding occult beliefs, but that´s another story), why do you think otherwise?

Besides: haven´t they told you? I´m brilliant!

Quote from: Some Forge GuyI repeated saying that evening that both are totally different hobbies.

I so don't buy this. Some people may play the game different than me, but some play it a little different and some play it a lot different.

It's a continuum, not a dichotomy, and I don't see this arbitrary wall-drawing as especially helpful.

I guess that's my fundamental problem with forge theory. I totally buy that people get different things out of gaming. I totally[/i] do not buy that "never the twain shall they meet."

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI so don't buy this. Some people may play the game different than me, but some play it a little different and some play it a lot different.

It's a continuum, not a dichotomy, and I don't see this arbitrary wall-drawing as especially helpful.

I guess that's my fundamental problem with forge theory. I totally buy that people get different things out of gaming. I totally[/i] do not buy that "never the twain shall they meet."

Bingo!

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe rhetoric of separation should be scrutinized; however, it isn't always because of a need to feel superior. Although the fear of being labeled inferior is probably what drives some opposition to separation. However separation can be valuable to all parties by helping to focus ideas around various common grounds.

I'm normally onboard the Elliot express but all this sounds rather...twee. Maybe it would help if you weren't posting in the same vicinity of Sett whose motives are suspect.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI guess that's my fundamental problem with forge theory. I totally buy that people get different things out of gaming. I totally[/i] do not buy that "never the twain shall they meet."

Can I just make the point that this is not 'Forge theory'? This is the off-the-cuff opinion of one guy.

Set, you know as well as me that Frank T isn't a prime example of a typical Forgeboy. He always kept always quite a bit of critical distance to the theories, he re-shaped those truths, he doesn't stick to Thematic gaming, and of course I'm pretty sure that your different-hobby-thesis on the German blogosphere had some influence on him.

Quote from: SettembriniI respect Frank T. (except his cultural relativism regarding occult beliefs, but that´s another story), why do you think otherwise?

I was a little unclear -- by "someone whose opinion you don't respect" I was referring to The Forge as a whole, much as you referred to The Forge as a whole by way of the singular quote you provided.

So, apparently this thread should be retitled "Frank T. admits Thematics being a hobby on its own!"  The fact remains, though, that you seem desperate for the approval of a collective group of gamers whom you regularly dismiss and openly dislike.

!i!

It's a love-hate thing.

QuoteThe fact remains, though, that you seem desperate for the approval of a collective group of gamers whom you regularly dismiss and openly dislike.

The only one wo comes over desperate are you guys, who like to wallow in your mediocrity and boredom of level-headedness.

BTW, Ron also openly admitted and confessed his mono-cultured aproach to RPGs.

See? They can´t be speaking for all RPGs.
Now they lost any credibility for their former claim.
Actually they forfeited their claim.
They stopped claiming altogether.

That´s what this is about.

Henceforth, when someone interrupts meaningful conversation, he can be pointed to the proof of schism: "Here, my little friend, is the utterance that clearly delineates the subject of the Forge. It has fuck to do with our pastime. Please stop now."

I wouldn't dream of trying to get narrativism in your gamism, Sett.

How can someone be desperately mediocre and boring? :confused:

!i!

Paris Hilton?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHow can someone be desperately mediocre and boring? :confused:

!i!

You tell me!

David,

There are good reasons for breaking up into different "artistic schools", so that you don't have to keep rehashing foundational ground. For an example of the latter, see: just about every thread that Blakkie posted to.

Within RPGs there are a lot of "truths" (basic assumptions about play) that are individually functional, but many of them are more or less mutually incompatible. So you might construct a complete "genre" from a group of compatible "truths", and then another "genre" from another group. People tend to think inductively and they use some subset of "genre markers" as both tools for differentiation and as indicators of the presence of a bunch of other "genre elements".

So basically what I'm saying is that "styles of gaming" exist which share many elements, but which are more or less incompatible. Also (a bit more speculatively) I believe that "styles of gaming" tend to cluster; the distribution across the space of "all styles, tastes, and attitudes about gaming" isn't uniform. Part of this is because people tend to work outwards from they know. Thus you have a vast number of variations (in terms of design & play) working from the premise of: fantasy races, adventuring for fame & experience, detailed combat & magic, escalating power level, players acting as characters taking on the world as represented by the GM. However it may also be due to "real" structural differences; I strongly suspect that there's a fundamental cognitive difference between "expressive" play that demands control over the fiction, and "experiential" play that involves exploring the fiction (even though it may alter the fiction at the same time).

But whatever the reason, focus is an aid to development, and focus means paying more attention to some things and less to other things, possibly none when those other things get in the way of what you're trying to focus on.

I see it as a bit of a cycle, actually. You have focus, a great deal of development ensues, and then you have cross-pollination, which also contributes to development. But without a bit of separation and focus it's a lot harder for new ideas to gain ground.

Quote from: SettembriniYou tell me!

I'm working on it.  The words "German", "roleplaying game", "intellectual", and "over-wrought" keep coming up in different order.

!i!

Elliot although I agree with most (some parts deserve a discussion of their own) of what you have written, I do think there's a difference between what you are saying and the garbage exclusionary position of Settembrini. Also I take it to mean "that styles of gaming" does not mean - rpg and not rpg, which is more or less what old Sett is claiming or rather has claimed before (he keeps changing his damn definitions)

Regards,
David R

So it remains: nobody can make an argument against it.
Sure some people say "vile" things about me.

But the subject at hand = I win.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHunh.  So we can now comfortably lump you into the same camp of over-analytical shitheads.  If that's what you want.

!i!

Well, that's exactly what he wants.

Sett is, even directly in terms of the tastes of German fandom, the exact equivalent of the Forge.  It just isn't obvious to us over here because the taste breakdowns of the German gaming public are like, the exact opposite of here.

He's a minority voice, steeped in bogus "theory" and attacks on mainstream German play.  

Hearing a Forgie confirm his lunacy isn't about proving him right, it's about him having accomplished his goal.

Quote from: SettembriniBut the subject at hand = I win.

Um...okay.

Hooray for you.

Do you perform encores for the dessert crowd?

!i!

Again, no argument whatsoever from you.:(

What's to argue?  You've unilaterally declared a victory in a fight that I didn't even realise was happening.  I'm simply applauding you for deriving personal satisfaction in finding one person who agrees with you on a RPG discussion site that you dislike.  How can I agrue with that?

!i!

Let's make it clear. To my way of thinking, Sett has only reproduced two of the original categories of GNS. He insists on the division between the two more strongly than Ron Edwards.

Poor old sim gets the shaft again.

Quote from: droogCan I just make the point that this is not 'Forge theory'? This is the off-the-cuff opinion of one guy.

Certainly, though to be fair, I've heard a similar take from Ron.

Droog, I don't think so. It's more like he's cordoned off hardcore Nar, leaving everything else as part of Adventure RPGing.

Quote from: SettembriniBut the subject at hand = I win.

There's an old rule of thumb I learned from the Army.

There are four basic types of enlisted soldiers, defined much like alignments in D&D, only the vectors are Smart/Stupid and Energetic/Lazy.

The Smart+Energetic are the specialists. They're the ones you send out in the field when you need to get the job done.

The Smart+Lazy are the officers. They're the ones who work with the bigger picture and try to attain victory with as little expense (and effort) as possible.

Even the Stupid+Lazy have a place in the armed forces. They're the grunts who make up the bulk of an army.

The Stupid+Energetic on the other hand, well, they're effectively working for the enemy.





Anyway, I just wanted to say it's nice to have you on OUR side :keke:

Quote from: Elliot WilenDroog, I don't think so. It's more like he's cordoned off hardcore Nar, leaving everything else as part of Adventure RPGing.

What you're calling hardcore Nar is what Ron used to call pervy Nar. Settembrini is just following in the wake of years of Forge discussions.

I know that. It's also not what you were saying.

"Pervy Nar" is a clear genre. What you were doing earlier was begging the question of the legitimacy of GNS.

And furthermore, whatever was discussed over the years, it's only just barely sinking in now, after wave after wave after wave of pervy Nar zombies invaded Internet discussions to tell everyone else they were playing wrong.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd furthermore, whatever was discussed over the years, it's only just barely sinking in now, after wave after wave after wave of pervy Nar zombies invaded Internet discussions to tell everyone else they were playing wrong.

So now we're going to have Sett & Co pollute internet discussions with equally dodgy terms ? At least he should try to be original and not ape Uncle Ron. I don't know what's worse - Forge folks telling us we are playing wrong or Sett attempting to do the same.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenI know that. It's also not what you were saying.

"Pervy Nar" is a clear genre. What you were doing earlier was begging the question of the legitimacy of GNS.

And furthermore, whatever was discussed over the years, it's only just barely sinking in now, after wave after wave after wave of pervy Nar zombies invaded Internet discussions to tell everyone else they were playing wrong.

My God, are we going to start using the terms now? 'Pervy' was thrown out years ago. It's just a question of whether the game has many points of rules-contact. For instance, we used to play RQ in a simmy way, despite it offering only a certain amount of support for this. Pendragon is a pervy sim game by those old terms, having many more points-of-contact wired in. Does that mean it's fundamentally different? We can argue about it, but it sure isn't settled.

Now, whether GNS is 'legitimate' or not is a separate question. I'm simply pointing out that Sett has reproduced part of it. Actually, it's more like Jared's Beeg Horseshoe.

I don't give a fig for what other morons do (I note that these don't include the big demons like Ron or Vincent). Look around you right here to see people telling other people they're doing it wrong.

Quote from: David RSo now we're going to have Sett & Co pollute internet discussions with equally dodgy terms ? At least he should try to be original and not ape Uncle Ron. I don't know what's worse - Forge folks telling us we are playing wrong or Sett attempting to do the same.

Regards,
David R

I'm inclined to believe the latter, if only for the added element of hypocrisy.

Quote from: David RSo now we're going to have Sett & Co pollute internet discussions with equally dodgy terms ? At least he should try to be original and not ape Uncle Ron. I don't know what's worse - Forge folks telling us we are playing wrong or Sett attempting to do the same.

Oh fer Fukuyama's sake.

This is like the arguments we used to have on rec.games.board where a few Euro fanatics would deny that Euros and wargames were different types of games...and therefore they were to be judged by the same criteria...which meant that wargames were overly fiddly & boring.

Practically everyone sees (at least) two centers of gravity, one for "traditional" games and another for "Forge-y" games. It's only when somebody tries to express a preference that differs from someone else that the argument gets trotted out that there's really nothing to distinguish the two varieties except that one works better.

Quote from: Elliot WilenPractically everyone sees (at least) two centers of gravity, one for "traditional" games and another for "Forge-y" games. It's only when somebody tries to express a preference that differs from someone else that the argument gets trotted out that there's really nothing to distinguish the two varieties except that one works better.

Well you got a couple of problems here.

Firstly old Sett isn't really talking about "centers of gravity". At different times he's molded his definitons to fit games he does not approve of. Also in a sly underhanded manner he's pushing for the concept that certain games are rpgs and others not...further conflating the issues with the question of playstyles.

Secondly I have serious doubts about these "centers of gravity". IME actual play of both Forge and Trad games reveals more similarities then differences. Now, we can I suppose reduce this conflict to a "cultural" question, but I fail to see how Sett's jargon has any bearing on what goes on around gaming tables and how you constantly speak about centers of gravity which has  nothing to do with what Sett is saying.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWell you got a couple of problems here.

Firstly old Sett isn't really talking about "centers of gravity".

Some clarification from Sett here would be helpful, I agree. (Going back to the wargame/Euro arguments...there are games such as Cosmic Encounter and Illuminati which do a good job of pleasing both audiences.)

QuoteAt different times he's molded his definitons to fit games he does not approve of.

I'm sorry, it's possible that I've overlooked this, or else that it didn't strike me as a significant [edit: and therefore memorable] defect in the overall thrust of his argument.

QuoteAlso in a sly underhanded manner he's pushing for the concept that certain games are rpgs and others not...further conflating the issues with the question of playstyles.

I seem to recall him getting into a row with Pundit by insisting that both Thematic and Adventure are varieties of roleplaying games. I think this is mostly a semantic distraction, though Sett recently claimed on Pundit's blog that Adventure RPGs have more to do with Battlelore, CCG's, and comic books than they do with Thematics. I disagree.

QuoteSecondly I have serious doubts about these "centers of gravity".

It may reflect a very different range of experience between you and many other gamers. Regardless of preferences (even people who don't express a preference), I think most people see a distinction, basically revolving around formalizing a radical redistribution of the "traditional" player-character/GM-world breakdown of authority & responsibility.

Look, I'm not denying your experience, but even so I realize it's not a very strong argument to claim you're atypical without providing ample evidence. It's not a proof, but if you want to know my impressions & perspective, there they are.

For all that is good and holy:

- Elliot is right. If people would remember, my first comparison was between "ASL" and "Memoir ´44"

- The terms are neutral. I´m not. Why is this so hard to grasp? Are you stupid? There is no inherent bias in calling something a Thematic Game. because that´s what they are, that´s what they are called by Forgers themselves!

- Adventure Gaming is not GAM.GAM doesn´t exist, IMO. I am a through and through simulationist GM, in the english language understanding of simulation.

- Adventure Gaming is just my proposed (used to be industry standard) term for all games called "trad" by propagandists.

- It´s not about a specific playstyle

- If you wanna talk about playstyle, we can talk about my "pillars of  adventure roleplaying"

Even moreso: I don´t NEED anybody here to use my proposed words.
It´s not a fucking theory.

It´s just an observation, for crying out loud.

As my Memoir 44 and ASL example proved, there can be no ultimate judgement. It´s moronic to judge between the two games. To talk about them as if they were one category is an exercise in dumbness and muddled brainwork.

And this is the state of RPG discourse on the internet. With the Forgers being very, very guilty of having caused it.

BUT: We can talk about aesthetic choices. Like talking about HipHop and Rock n Roll = no real comparison can be made.

Quote from: droogMy God, are we going to start using the terms now?

Only because you brought them up. I'd prefer not to, thus the scare quotes.

QuoteNow, whether GNS is 'legitimate' or not is a separate question. I'm simply pointing out that Sett has reproduced part of it. Actually, it's more like Jared's Beeg Horseshoe.

It's different from both, and the claim that Sett's just recapitulating Ron or Jared serves what purpose, exactly?

QuoteI don't give a fig for what other morons do (I note that these don't include the big demons like Ron or Vincent). Look around you right here to see people telling other people they're doing it wrong.

Not sure about Ron; it has included Vincent, though that's based on old comments. Furthermore, Sett can correct me, but I don't think he's terribly focused on Ron here. Jesus wasn't a Christian! Ergo, we can't say anything about Christianity?

See, droog, it´s just like this:

People all around the world are struggling for words, when faced with adressing the issue (the issue being, that there´s need to adress a certain type of games). I proposed better words. Nothing more nothing less.

Do I need to show you examples how often people want to seperate ARGs and TRGs in actual conversation?

To me it´s obvious, and I really don´t care if you use my proposed terms. because if you don´t, you are still making the division, it´s just so that you sound way more stupid or insulting while doing so.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on, given my state of inebriation, but droog strikes me as being in possession of a valid point.

Not at all, he is as wrong as ever.

The "forgey" vs. "trad" divide is at totally different one, then the GNS categories.

Which should be clear to everyone.

Probably, probably. Who am I to disagree.

Can I ask a question?

Why TF are you up this early on a Sunday?

For what it's worth, I like "Expressive" vs. "Experiential" (suggested by what someone wrote in comments on my LJ) as much or more than "Thematic" vs. "Adventure"...but they're not very catchy labels for generic classes.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityProbably, probably. Who am I to disagree.

Can I ask a question?

Why TF are you up this early on a Sunday?

protestant work ethic.

I loathe weekends. "Thank god it´s monday!" Shall be my motto.

I knew it.

That's TERRIBLE. I'm a lapsed catholic, see. A Baroque man.

Next time I visit Berlin I take you out. If the scene is still what it was in the 90s, we'll get started by having Gyros in Kreuzberg at midnight and take it from there.

Gyros? That´s talk of someone from Restdeutschland. Here we only eat Döner.

You´d be horrified what happened to Berlins night life: all invaded by small town students who are sponsored by mum and dad, and come to live some years in the BIG CITY to be cool and hip. Their are "a la mode" alternative/leftist leanings are pretty disgusting.

I call them "Latte Macciatto Lefties".

Elliot and the Settster -

Ultimately, I'm just playing. I don't care if you guys get together with pitchforks and torches and drive me out of the much-romanticised 'hobby'. You can use whatever words you want.

But you're both simply wrong. Going on Settembrini's views, 'adventure games' must include challenge, competition. It's the Step on Up principle. That puts them into the category of gamism as articulated by Ron. It doesn't account for simulationism, however.

Is 'thematic' to be a synonym for 'games produced by people affiliated with the Forge or Story Games? What of Agon? That's all about competition. Again, no room for sim here. You're denying it exists, like Jared did.

What you're really talking about is whether games have funky mechanics. There again I feel you get yourselves into trouble, because many things have been tried over the history of RPGs.

Sounds like the good old days. One day we got arrested by the Vopos at the border, what with the blazing boombox in our Golf Cabrio...

We had to drive into this garage... and then the (literally) iron curtain went down, and the neon lights went on...

"Take the seats and dashboard out of the car." "We don't know how." "No problem. We'll show you."

And they did. Good times!

QuoteBut you're both simply wrong. Going on Settembrini's views, 'adventure games' must include challenge, competition. It's the Step on Up principle. That puts them into the category of gamism as articulated by Ron. It doesn't account for simulationism, however.

No, you don´t understand your own play, bucky. Did you have combats in your RQ campaign?
Were these combats rolled dice for?

Then it was an Adventure Roleplaying Game.

When I say there is a challenge, then I´m distancing it from challenge-less play. Play where the PCs are immortal, for example. Play were the DM railroads all the way. And this obviously is not RQ or Traveller or any kind of sensible type of gaming.

I fear your narrow experiences in the RPG field have left you blind on several dimensions.

Especially your remark of "funky mechanics" is begettting of a lack of insight into what Thematic Games are really built upon. The mechanics are irrelevant. It´s the aim of play and structure of product as well as mode of reading that is important here.

Adventure RPGs are RPGs in which you can do stuff in interesting places, just because. That´s pretty broad and includes most RPGs. Especially those from the RQ pillar.

You can have combats in Sorcerer too, you know. Even in Dogs in the Vineyard.

GO BACK TO THE FORGE!

:rolleyes:

Yeah you can have combats in them. So what? You are acting more and more like David: wisecrackery and sophistry...

Thematic Games are adressing a premise. Combat is only window dressing.
It´s all about themes and moral decisions, which are thunk to be some sort of story.

Whereas in an Adventure Game, you have Adventures to have Adventures.

That´s the structural difference.

I'm just shocked that Berlin has a nightlife.  The last time I heard of it having a Nightlife it was 1929.

RPGPundit

You´d be amazed, it´s one of the most popular night lives in Europe, nowadays [Except, of course compared to London. Nothing compares to London and New York. They are a different category]. That´s why it´s so Latte-Macciatto-tonic and disgusting to me.

Regarding art and music, Berlin is at the top of the heap. And that draws the small-town immigrant bar-flys.

Again, nothing that I would care for.

EDIT: It´s a big difference compared to the twenites. Because there is no money in Berlin, only aritsts, and artistés + small town idiots. Without Big Money, it´s either artsy or pathetic, but not in any way grandiose.

Quote from: Elliot WilenRegardless of preferences (even people who don't express a preference), I think most people see a distinction, basically revolving around formalizing a radical redistribution of the "traditional" player-character/GM-world breakdown of authority & responsibility.

Oh definitely Elliot, there is a distinction but it's a distinction that does not disqualify one set of games from being RPGs - which is what Sett is aimimg for.

Observe the dodgy thinking here:
 

QuoteSett wrote:
Thematic Games are adressing a premise. Combat is only window dressing.
It´s all about themes and moral decisions, which are thunk to be some sort of story.

Whereas in Adventure games you have adventures
That´s the structural difference

Now surely you don't think this makes much sense.

What I really think is at issue here - and one that I would be very surprised that would bother you - is this. The root cause of Sett's problem between "trad" and "Forge" games is that the latter perhaps is evidence that the definiton of what an rpg is is expanding.

Regards,
David R

Droog, nobody's driving you out of the hobby though you're doing a good job of playing the martyr lately.

It's possible that Sett & I will have to have an argument somewhere down the road. (Though I doubt it given what he's posted while I was typing this.)

The point of commonality we have--I think--isn't challenge & competition, but the player's "alienation" from the game-world, mirroring the character's. It happens that this provides a good arena for challenge, since if there's any conflict at all, the need to negotiate the inner workings of the game world to overcome the conflict is likely to be more challenging than rolling to win some agreed-on stakes.

Wargamers can distinguish between wargames and non-wargames (it has nothing to do with war, e.g., Condottiere is a fine non-wargame about war; Star Trader is a great wargame about running an interstellar trading company). They can also agree that some wargames make better games than others regardless of their "wargaminess". (SPI's Agincourt is a crappy game but that was almost inevitable given the goal of making a tactical wargame.)

I still don't know Agon, so if our discussion hinges on that I'm afraid we're at an impasse. However I suspect the issue can be resolved more or less by analogy with the wargame/Euro divide. All you have to do is look at the difference between Circus Maximus and Milles Bournes, or between Gladiator and Titan: The Arena/Colossal Arena. Some games put you in the role of a specific, identifiable actor or interest group, with means and goals analogous to that actor; others put players in more abstract roles--or no identifiable role at all--and give them a scope of action that can't be interpreted as representing the decisions of an in-game actor. E.g., in Milles Bournes you get to decide if you'd rather add to your mileage or have your opponent's car break down: a strategic decision, but not one available to an actual race car driver. It's a card game dressed up with a racing theme. In like manner, the moment-to-moment responsibility imposed on players of The Mountain Witch to "drive their characters toward conflicts", and the expectation that the GM will stage-manage things to escalate tension over the course of the adventure--these factors along with near absence of simulative mechanics put the players in a vastly different decision-space compared to their characters.

Of course in details "traditional games" deviate here and there. Hero Points have been around for a long time but largely as exceptions to the normal procedures rather than dominating play.

Quote from: SettembriniThematic Games are adressing a premise. Combat is only window dressing.
It´s all about themes and moral decisions, which are thunk to be some sort of story.

Whereas in an Adventure Game, you have Adventures to have Adventures.

That´s the structural difference.

I'm sure you're just going to accuse me of sophistry again, but that is Ron's distinction between nar on one hand, and sim or gam on the other. You appear to have rolled the two categories into one, that's all.

Where do you place Pendragon, which has as its stated aim neither adventure nor theme?

Quote from: Elliot WilenDroog, nobody's driving you out of the hobby though you're doing a good job of playing the martyr lately.

Martyrs aren't laughing as much as me, Elliot.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point of commonality we have--I think--isn't challenge & competition, but the player's "alienation" from the game-world, mirroring the character's. It happens that this provides a good arena for challenge, since if there's any conflict at all, the need to negotiate the inner workings of the game world to overcome the conflict is likely to be more challenging than rolling to win some agreed-on stakes.

Not all of the Forge games use agreed-on stakes (eg Sorcerer, or Dust Devils). Furthermore, agreeing on stakes beforehand is not revolutionary: simply a formalising of something many of us have done in the past on an ad hoc basis. Often one follows a similar procedure, but after the roll.

Don't swallow the Kool-Aid, man.

Quote from: David ROh definitely Elliot, there is a distinction but it's a distinction that does not disqualify one set of games from being RPGs - which is what Sett is aimimg for.

Sett can answer you on that.

I think the distinction is worth observing because it shows how to avoid chocolate-peanut butter arguments. (Or more like fried liver-ice cream. Again, take a look at many, many of Blakkie's contributions.)

QuoteNow surely you don't think this makes much sense.

Actually, it does make sense to me. Conceiving of RPGs in terms of "story" makes it allowable to regard concrete cause-and-effect, internal dynamics, as peripheral--so you can gloss over them with mechanically-irrelevant description. (Or even mechanically-relevant description that has nothing to do with internal dynamics. Dogs and Wushu go here. Also, in a way, any GM-fudged & stage-managed game.)

Note: "story" doesn't require violating or sidelining internal dynamics; that's something I think a number of people have shown including you, Kyle, Marco, and -E.

QuoteWhat I really think is at issue here - and one that I would be very surprised that would bother you - is this. The root cause of Sett's problem between "trad" and "Forge" games is that the latter perhaps is evidence that the definiton of what an rpg is is expanding.

Again, you'll have to see what Sett says. For me the distinction is useful because it helps illuminate craft & criticism.

Quote from: droogI'm sure you're just going to accuse me of sophistry again, but that is Ron's distinction between nar on one hand, and sim or gam on the other. You appear to have rolled the two categories into one, that's all.

Maybe because RPGs grew out of wargames, which comfortably included "sim" and "gam" (though not "sim" in the centrally-railroaded-to-tell-a-story fashion), and that combination has managed to work just fine in RPGs, thanks very much, provided nobody at the table decided to start "telling a story".

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think the distinction is worth observing because it shows how to avoid chocolate-peanut butter arguments.

So does the Big Model.

Quote from: Elliot WilenMaybe because RPGs grew out of wargames, which comfortably included "sim" and "gam" (though not "sim" in the centrally-railroaded-to-tell-a-story fashion), and that combination has managed to work just fine in RPGs, thanks very much, provided nobody at the table decided to start "telling a story".

It may have worked for you, but there are enough people around (on the Forge tit or not) that wanted 'a story' to make it problematic. Ron's contribution was to try and identify what 'a story' might be in RPG terms, and how that might be achieved in the context of an RPG.

Quote from: droogNot all of the Forge games use agreed-on stakes (eg Sorcerer, or Dust Devils).

I don't know DD. Sorcerer is less radical than many of its successors, though (based on reading) it has a number of characteristics both mechanically and in GM advice (or maybe it's the online scholia, hard to remember what's in the book and what's in the glosses) which push it away from the center of "experiential play".

In any case, "made at the Forge" isn't the same as "expressive"/Thematic/"Forge-y".

Quote from: droogSo does the Big Model.

It tries to but then it gets the categories all wrong, since the only answer it offers to the issue is GNS. And GNS overdiagnoses delusion with latent Narrativist tendencies, prescription: shock therapy in the form of DitV/Sorcerer.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn any case, "made at the Forge" isn't the same as "expressive"/Thematic/"Forge-y".

Now that's a radical statement. Care to back that up with examples?

Quote from: droogIt may have worked for you, but there are enough people around (on the Forge tit or not) that wanted 'a story' to make it problematic. Ron's contribution was to try and identify what 'a story' might be in RPG terms, and how that might be achieved in the context of an RPG.

...and created a different hobby for it. Which is fine and well.

But the play-aim of "telling/constructing/adressing a story" is so fundamentally different from what RPGs are actually built to do!

This was the conflict that lead to many crappy games, and to the formation of the Forger way of doing things. And for their stuff, it all works and makes sense. Sadly, some of them, Ron the most, don´t understand or grasp that story is not what RPGs where developed for.
And is not what most PLAYERS want.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt tries to but then it gets the categories all wrong, since the only answer it offers to the issue is GNS. And GNS overdiagnoses delusion with latent Narrativist tendencies, prescription: shock therapy in the form of DitV/Sorcerer.

But you have to separate the intellectual content from the emotional dialogue around it. You can say the same thing about the Settembrini Model--only a little while ago Sett was claiming poor moral standards for people who didn't go for challenge in their games.

Quote from: droogRon's contribution was to try and identify what 'a story' might be in RPG terms, and how that might be achieved in the context of an RPG.

Nonsequitur. Special pleading. It doesn't exonerate him or all the "little Rons" from screwing up discussion by misdiagnosing delusion when someone balks at anti-experiential mechanics and/or arrangements of authority/responsibility.

Quote from: SettembriniThis was the conflict that lead to many crappy games, and to the formation of the Forger way of doing things. And for their stuff, it all works and makes sense. Sadly, some of them, Ron the most, don´t understand or grasp that story is not what RPGs were developed for.
And is not what most PLAYERS want.

Most players who prefer a certain model, you mean. That's kind of circular.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNonsequitur. Special pleading. It doesn't exonerate him or all the "little Rons" from screwing up discussion by misdiagnosing delusion when someone balks at anti-experiential mechanics and/or arrangements of authority/responsibility.

That's a separate issue, as I pointed out above.

QuoteMost players who prefer a certain model, you mean. That's kind of circular.

So what? The whole scene is circular, so that´s just fitting. See Elliots misdiagnosis argument.

Quote from: SettembriniSo what? The whole scene is circular, so that´s just fitting. See Elliots misdiagnosis argument.

Out here in fleshspace, I meet player after player who try Sorcerer, or My Life with Master, or Primetime Adventures, or Dogs in the Vineyard, and enjoy it. Interestingly, many of the people I've found to be most resistant are, in fact, long-term White Wolf afficionadoes.

Sure, and do they buy the game?
Do they stop playing real campaigns?

EDIT: As with ASL vs. Memoir 44, you can enjoy both. More power to you.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSett can answer you on that.

Actually he won't or can't which is part of the problem. You, though seem to have a grasp of his dodgy statements, so it's more productive talking to you.

QuoteI think the distinction is worth observing because it shows how to avoid chocolate-peanut butter arguments. (Or more like fried liver-ice cream. Again, take a look at many, many of Blakkie's contributions.)

Yeah, but again, does this distinction mean that certain games are not rpgs ?

QuoteActually, it does make sense to me. Conceiving of RPGs in terms of "story" makes it allowable to regard concrete cause-and-effect, internal dynamics, as peripheral--so you can gloss over them with mechanically-irrelevant description. (Or even mechanically-relevant description that has nothing to do with internal dynamics. Dogs and Wushu go here. Also, in a way, any GM-fudged & stage-managed game.)

Yes Elliot but do you think that those games are not rpgs...because you see, if Sett's description makes sense and how could it since he's talking about playstyles or sometimes he's talking about playstyles, then you would surely see the distinction as being that of the old rpg/not rpg argument.

Also if you notice Sett isn't conceiving rpgs in terms of story....thematic is the word he uses. He should withdraw that word....I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

Edit:

QuoteElliot wrote:
...well, it's not a perfect fit but pretty much every game which recommends GM fudging and stage-managing demonstrates that Sett's Thematic/Adventure split isn't all about the Forge.

Now fudging is thematic play?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogNow that's a radical statement. Care to back that up with examples?

Burning Wheel Revised, The Shadow of Yesterday: relatively un-Forge-y games that were developed at least partly at the Forge. BW perhaps a bit less than TSoY, because a lot of the conditions for earning Artha require you to basically act against your character's interests, while IIRC, TSoY only requires you to express the character by hitting your Keys, if you want to get points.

Forge-y games not developed at the Forge: well, it's not a perfect fit but pretty much every game which recommends GM fudging and stage-managing demonstrates that Sett's Thematic/Adventure split isn't all about the Forge. So: (based on hearsay) Dragonlance & much of WoD, frankly many, many published modules since the mid-80's. In terms of recent games (not modules) I'm at a bit of a loss...again based on hearsay & reviews I'll offer Pantheon (Hogshead).

Quote from: droogThat's a separate issue, as I pointed out above.

It's the issue of the thread.

Quote from: SettembriniSure, and do they buy the game?
Do they stop playing real campaigns?

Yes, they buy the games. As for 'real' campaigns, I couldn't say. If you mean "Do they stop playing in other ways?", not in most cases. But then, many of the groups I've known play only one or two games regularly anyway. A friend of mine back in Perth recently ran three different games in six months (a Greek game based on RQ, a house-ruled game of Cyberpunk, and Dust Devils). He wants to try DitV. This is after spending over a decade playing nothing but GURPS. My story is similar--after running nothing but RQ for years, I branched out with Pendragon (by the way, are you going to answer my question regarding PD?), then HQ, then several Forgenik games.

If there ever was a wargamey heir in RPGs, it´s Pendragon. Pendragon is all about simulation and strategy.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's the issue of the thread.

No, it's not.

Quote from: SettembriniIf there ever was a wargamey heir in RPGs, it´s Pendragon. Pendragon is all about simulation and strategy.

Strategy? Are you kidding me? There's about as much strategy in PD as in Toon. Or as in Malory.

Then you are playing it wrong. You are a knight and plan your family´s way through the ages. Manors, land, political marriages, faith, winter courts: It doesn´t get much mor strategic in a medieval environment.

EDIT: Even if you ignore these aspects, you aren´t adressing a "premise" in a meta-way. All things are about an imaginary world, and the adventures and fictional lives of the characters.

Quote from: SettembriniThen you are playing it wrong. You are a knight and plan your family´s way through the ages. Manors, land, political marriages, faith, winter courts: It doesn´t get much mor strtegic in a medieval environment.

No, you're playing it wrong. Good argument, eh?

Quote from: Greg StaffordPendragon is unlike any game you have played. It has many revolutionary features which are novel to roleplaying games. It provides an imaginary method for you to participate in the wondrous world of King Arthur.
......................
The myth of Arthur's world has grown over the fourteen centuries of its literary existence, added to by many authors, whose ranks you are about to join.

Huh? Every adventure game is supposed to transport you into an imaginary world. That´s a major fucking point of playing!

EDIT: From your erratic comment I take it, there´s a major misunderstanding going on. You can´t be in any way  discussing the same things we are. Whatcha talking about?

Quote from: SettembriniHuh? Every adventure game is supposed to transport you into an imaginary world. That´s a major fucking point of playing!

Yeah, that's what Ron Edwards calls Exploration.

Quote from: David RYeah, but again, does this distinction mean that certain games are not rpgs ?

I'm with Lisa Padol in her review of Pantheon: she says it's a story-telling game; I've said that games which give players a lot of control outside their characters, or which require players to regard their characters in the "third person", or which expect players to accept rather transparent story-motivated manipulation by the GM all feel more like "story-telling games" than "roleplaying games" to me. I just don't say that much in public anymore because people flip out when they hear it. Besides, it's a relative distinction, and the two genres are related and overlapping both in form and in audience.

The important question I think is, "So Elliot doesn't consider Polaris to be as much of an RPG as Runequest, so what?"

So...I don't think it's crap, in fact based on a little play I think it's kinda fun. I don't think it can or should be excluded from discussion at RPG.net or theRPGsite. I just don't think that when somebody has a problem with D&D, the answer is automatically to drop D&D in favor of a Forge game, or to introduce Forge-y techniques to D&D.

QuoteAlso if you notice Sett isn't conceiving rpgs in terms of story....thematic is the word he uses. He should withdraw that word....I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

I don't think he means the word "Thematic" to define the distinction so much as to represent the most common motivation for not playing in "adventure" mode. Again, I like "expressive/experiential", "storytelling/immersive", or a number of other possibilities.

QuoteNow fudging is thematic play?

I think we've had this discussion a bunch of times; fudging is anti-experiential because it fosters metagame expectations and calculations.

So fucking what?

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: From your erratic comment I take it, there´s a major misunderstanding going on. You can´t be in any way  discussing the same things we are. Whatcha talking about?

We are talking about the same things. What I'm saying, and have been saying since I decided to post in this thread, is that you're simply going over old ground. And in general, while you make some good points now and then, the Forge stuff is better; probably because they had many good minds working together for longer.

Quote from: droogNo, it's not.

Well, I'm going to bed, and I hope to spend most of Sunday out of doors. You can have the last word after this.

The point of the thread is that there's a difference between Forge-Nar and "everything else", and that difference is sinking in where previously a lot of Forgers have been One True Wayist evangelizers. You acknowledged most of this when you said that first page or so all boiled down to Sett recapitulating GNS. Whether Ron's good or bad or GNS is an accurate way of breaking down gaming culture is a digression.

@droog
You aren´t understanding what I´m writing. This is not a theory. And the Forger terms are biased, dishonest and viral marketing. that´s why we should use others. That´s what I´m saying.

Moreso, the Big Model is flawed from the core, in that it tries to adress things it doesn´t even understand. That has been proven time and time again.

But that´s totally not the issue here.
The issue here is if it´s fruitful to seperate two styles of games in certain times in certain discussions.

You are muddling everything up, you surely are not talking about what I´m talking about.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point of the thread is that there's a difference between Forge-Nar and "everything else", and that difference is sinking in where previously a lot of Forgers have been One True Wayist evangelizers. You acknowledged most of this when you said that first page or so all boiled down to Sett recapitulating GNS. Whether Ron's good or bad or GNS is an accurate way of breaking down gaming culture is a digression.

Well, you know, old Coaltar is a GURPS evangelist. Poontang is an Amber evangelist. My old mate Brett is an RQ evangelist. It's hard to say anything about that except that some people should step the fuck back now and then.

While there are some common points between some Forge games, and while you can trace some lines of development through several different games, that means nothing except for the obvious point that some people have influences. At most, you can talk about 'Forge games', though I'd have to qualify that if I used it myself.

Now, your 'experiential vs expressive' divide is a bit better than Settembrini's 'adventure vs thematic'. though it seems that neither of you are fully aware of the range of Forge games. And in the end, neither seem to say more than 'traditional vs Forge-like'.

Quote from: SettembriniThe issue here is if it´s fruitful to seperate two styles of games in certain times in certain discussions.

It would be best to talk about each game in its uniqueness, in point of fact.

PS Muddles are fun. xxx

QuoteNow, your 'experiential vs expressive' divide is a bit better than Settembrini's 'adventure vs thematic'. though it seems that neither of you are fully aware of the range of Forge games. And in the end, neither seem to say more than 'traditional vs Forge-like'.

Welcome to the discussion...:rolleyes:

I don't mean to drag this on, so consider this my final thoughts on the topic.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm with Lisa Padol in her review of Pantheon: she says it's a story-telling game; I've said that games which give players a lot of control outside their characters, or which require players to regard their characters in the "third person", or which expect players to accept rather transparent story-motivated manipulation by the GM all feel more like "story-telling games" than "roleplaying games" to me. I just don't say that much in public anymore because people flip out when they hear it. Besides, it's a relative distinction, and the two genres are related and overlapping both in form and in audience.

To be honest I dislike the term "storygames" partly because as an old school gamer who used the term "story" frequently to describe games and to see it now being used to differentiate between games/playstyles...well let's just say the term (as it is used now) robs "the overlapping" part of any of it's meaning.

QuoteThe important question I think is, "So Elliot doesn't consider Polaris to be as much of an RPG as Runequest, so what?"

Elliot this whole Swine shite is about making it clear that some forms of gaming is unacceptable.

QuoteSo...I don't think it's crap, in fact based on a little play I think it's kinda fun. I don't think it can or should be excluded from discussion at RPG.net or theRPGsite. I just don't think that when somebody has a problem with D&D, the answer is automatically to drop D&D in favor of a Forge game, or to introduce Forge-y techniques to D&D.

This is to be expected when you post your problems about D&D in forums where there are a diverse range of playstyles and games. I mean this is where the "overlapping" occurs.

The way how I see it, one has two choices.

1. Post your questions about D&D in a forum where D&D is mainly played or

2. Clearly define your post to exclude elements that you think don't fit into your playstyle - something you have done before.

QuoteI don't think he means the word "Thematic" to define the distinction so much as to represent the most common motivation for not playing in "adventure" mode.

What is this "adventure" mode you - Sett - keep going on about? So thematic play is the most common motivation not to go on "adventures"

QuoteI think we've had this discussion a bunch of times; fudging is anti-experiential because it fosters metagame expectations and calculations.

So anything that fosters metagame expectations and calculations is ...thematic?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: Even if you ignore these aspects, you aren´t adressing a "premise" in a meta-way. All things are about an imaginary world, and the adventures and fictional lives of the characters.

Back to this. Naturally PD is not addressing a premise, or even facilitating the addressing of a premise. What it's doing is attempting to recreate an atmosphere. It aims to foster the dream of Arthuriana.

Combat in PD gives you little chance for tactical skill. It's a matter of hacking away until somebody goes down. It's as much window-dressing as is combat in Sorcerer.

Not to go on too long about it, I say you are missing an important category of style/motive/agenda. That is the category known at the Forge as simulationism.

Quote from: droogCombat in PD gives you little chance for tactical skill. It's a matter of hacking away until somebody goes down. It's as much window-dressing as is combat in Sorcerer.

Actually, this is a good reason you should try something where combat is an entertaining game in its own right, like DnD.

The fight scenes can then become a part of the story, instead of something that changes the direction of the story.

Takes the action from (they fight) (someone wins) to actually taking part of the narative.

Er - the battles in Babylon 5 were a lot of the first sort - they consisted of more or less a montage of ships shooting at each other and people looking intently at radar screens, but giving no real impression of what is going on. Which is in contrast to like a documentary about Trafalgar, where what is going on.

Or the difference between a soap about the lives and loves of policemen vs. a police proceedural focusing on the crime.

Its good. You should try it. Its always possible that you really don't like the fighting and would prefer to concentrate on other things, but theres a good chance you would enjoy it alot.

You might even think it inovative enought to want to incorperate it in to your new games. I know I did.

Awake, I hope briefly, because I have some sleeping to catch up on.

Droog, what the Big Model calls Exploration, Sett calls The Method of Roleplay. "Transport to an imaginary world" is first-person play, "experiential".

You're also mixing up varieties of evangelism. Maybe you're trolling. The form of evangelism I'm referring to works like this: "RPGs are for telling stories. Until now, you and I have been using a set of "broken wheels" in the form of wargame-derived games to tell our stories. I've found this great new type of game that helps me tell stories better. You'll like it better, too." At this point the first sentence is questioned, and then "telling stories" is debated through a series of moronic arguments, when all you really have to observe is: lots of people like RPGs because of the experiential aspect, wargame-derived rules work well for that, and it's killed dead for them by these supposedly "better games".

David, the Swine stuff isn't about some forms of gaming being unacceptable (well, maybe it is for Pundy), it's about people who tell you that you don't understand your own preferences.

"Adventure" mode = strong correlation of player-knowledge and player-action with character knowledge/action, reinforcing cognitive identification with the specific role. It fosters "adventures" in the sense of experiencing strange new worlds in person.

Gotta stop here. "Thematic" is basically that which works against "Adventure", though.

Yepp, you can´t have my srot of "Sector Duke Fun" with Burning Empires. They are incompatible, for example.

Now, I´m a big proponent of amalgamated and "incoherent" play. I have players who like this aspect or that aspect, and we have to make healthy compromises. But certain traits in a game make certain fun-sources impossible.

Thinking of RPGs as "Story-Machines" is one of those.

Settembrini, I believe what droog is saying here is that in your weaker moments you sound like nothing more than a Forge gamist. In other words, like a Gleichman minus Gleichman's wisdom.

Deep down you do think Pendragon is a bit boring, no? And that's fine. But so does RE, I'm sure. It's pretty weak in both sector duke and storytelling terms. You don't get to dethrone Arthur, and you can die pathetically in a third-rate joust--see recent reports on Stafford's Dundracon game on rpg.net.

You really need to clarify the relation between character / empire build on one hand, "adventure game" on the other. Are they identical? -> Welcome to the Forge. Or is the latter more comprehensive? -> How so, precisely?

Quote from: SettembriniThinking of RPGs as "Story-Machines" is one of those.

Well, not quite--again, as a few people including I think David, Marco, and -E have shown, you can use the terms "story" and "plot" without necessarily reaching the conclusion that The Mountain Witch is a technologically-superior tool with the same purpose as Bushido.

What does take you there is thinking of "story-machines" in terms of entitlement to expression rather than a ticket to an experience.

Edit: Sett, Pierce is right, your message is occasionally muddied by an emphasis (overemphasis?) on Challenge. Though your post here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121051&postcount=67) and mine here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121071&postcount=74) address the issue. I'd like to see further questions work from those as a basis.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, not quite--again, as a few people including I think David, Marco, and -E have shown, you can use the terms "story" and "plot" without necessarily reaching the conclusion that The Mountain Witch is a technologically-superior tool with the same purpose as Bushido.

What does take you there is thinking of "story-machines" in terms of entitlement to expression rather than a ticket to an experience.

Edit: Sett, Pierce is right, your message is occasionally muddied by an emphasis (overemphasis?) on Challenge. Though your post here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121051&postcount=67) and mine here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121071&postcount=74) address the issue. I'd like to see further questions work from those as a basis.

Well Eliot, it´s all true what you say.

@Story: If I didn´t think story was one factor/dimension that is important to adventure gaming, I´d advocate the usage of the term "story-game".

I´m obviously not.

There is a certain, "Edwardian", interpretation of what story means. And this is sort of idiosyncratic: it´s the embarassing embodiement of petite-bourgeious north american 50ies+ navel gazing, that Pierce, droog and I talked about some while ago. If some other word than "Thematic" is a better fit, I´ll gladly use it.

@overemphasis of challenge: That is most likely a parochialism. You must know, that in Germany we have gaming going on, that is TOTALLY void of any challenge whatsoever. You get rewards on the social and in-game levels for behaving according to a pre-set catalog of morals, as well as "keeping and reinforcing the ambiance". My RQ comment has to be seen through this lens: I doubt that any RQ gaming in an anglophone country REALLY is void of challenges on whatever level. Consequences are a staple of simulationist (english meaning) gameplay.

It's important to note that when they say story they don't even really mean story, they mean "making moral statements."

So this whole story thing is a lie from the beginning. It's just another repurposed vocab word that is being used to fool unwary people into buying things. (Which borderlines on a  fucking scam, if you ask me. I mean if your'e trying to sell stuff, be honest.)

See, the big not-so-secret is ... everyone values story. Everyone. Every single person in gaming. Everyone of you reading this. This is a universality of roleplaying games in general. Otherwise we'd be playing chess. The story matters.

I started out with this thinking "sure, my campaign's story and their uhh.. "shooting children in the face to illustrate how intolerant religion can be" games are both creating stories. Right? Just one is different from the other.

But they are not willing to reciprocate on this. Which is really too bad for them, really. Because for one thing their stories are pretty fucking tedious. And for another thing, this hobby is our ocean, they just swim in it. We don't have to take their shit, as it turns out.

Well, anyhow, that's the whole thing. They don't consider stuff like what happens in a campaign a story at all, because it lacks the Approved Moral Lesson part. If your game lacks an Approved Moral Lesson..it doesn't have a story... to them.  

Remember that.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Adventure" mode = strong correlation of player-knowledge and player-action with character knowledge/action, reinforcing cognitive identification with the specific role. It fosters "adventures" in the sense of experiencing strange new worlds in person.

Gotta stop here. "Thematic" is basically that which works against "Adventure", though.

Elliot this isn't saying very much. Maybe it's because the word "adventure" itself is problematic. I dig the fact that it all boils down to "thematic means working against adventure"

With regards to the whole "making moral statements"...sheesh, this is the problem with the adventure/thematic, storygame/rpg divide.

And yeah, I know I said my last post was my final thoughts, but....

Regards,
David R

Okay, for your benefit David: forget the terms Adventure & Thematic.

The breakdown is between:

a) We try to have "what the player knows" roughly match "what the character knows", and "what the player does" maps structurally to "what the character does".

Or b) We're relatively unconcerned about player knowledge/expectations diverging from character knowledge/expectations (e.g., players know the characters can't die in a combat that happens in the first 15 minutes of play, and expect a climactic battle in the last half hour), and players mostly "do stuff" in ways that don't map structurally to the actions of their characters. (E.g., player activity consists mainly in negotiating a narrative via a collection of keywords, as in Polaris. Or the player chooses his own character's Fallout, even whether said Fallout makes the character more or less capable, as in Dogs in the Vineyard.)

I agree that "making moral statements" is a blind alley; it's what GNS officially uses to distinguish Nar, at least last I checked. Technically you're making a moral statement when you choose to hold off the Etruscans at the bridge, even if you're playing RQ and there's nothing in the rules which gives the moral content of your action any special mechanical consequence. However in practice there's a switch-up such that the desire for Nar is expressed as a need, in fact a responsibility, to exercise external control over the fiction from moment-to-moment, as the only way to guarantee you'll be able to "make your statement".

In short the technical definition of Nar doesn't really identify the major fault line between game styles and tastes, rather it's a set of mechanics designed for the benefit of people who desire to be entitled to express themselves in a manner they see fit, instead of having to work through the fiction in an experiential fashion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short the technical definition of Nar doesn't really identify the major fault line between game styles and tastes, .....

Neither does adventure/thematic...so why use any of this nonsense?

Regards,
David R

Why not just use words people already use? If you talk to gamers who've never heard of this stuff, they use words like "hack & slash dungeon crawls" and "thespy angsty bullshit". We can just trim those down a bit to make them less judgmental... hack/thesp. And cinematic/realistic, etc.

Then you get to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. But I guess really the Forgers and Settembrini and our own Mirror Ron want to be prescriptive. They want to tell us what to do.

:confused:

Quote from: David RNeither does adventure/thematic...so why use any of this nonsense?

So, what I wrote in my last post was nonsense, David?

I mean (a) vs. (b). Nonsense, eh?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhy not just use words people already use?

You mean like they've been using them for the last couple decades?

These are distinctions that keep getting discussed.

There's a reason for this: because they mean something to the people raising the distinction.

Story-telling games (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp/browse_thread/thread/4e3025fd27b1d919/4b10b4745b156099?lnk=st&q=torg+plamondon+group%3Arec.games.frp&rnum=5#4b10b4745b156099)
Storytelling vs. Roleplaying Games (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=121301)
A modest proposal: rec.games.frp.storytelling (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=121301)

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo, what I wrote in my last post was nonsense, David?

I mean (a) vs. (b). Nonsense, eh?

No Elliot. What I was refering to was GNS and Adventure/thematic. I should have made that clear.

Regards,
David R

Yes but they don't mean anything to anyone else.

You can't argue for the universal applicability of language which hardly anybody understands, and where even the founders of argue about the meanings.

Whereas if you use everyday English as used by the people engaging in the activity, things make a lot more sense. To everyone.

I don't think anyone's had any more luck with hack/thesp or cinematic/realistic than we've had with simulationist/dramatist or RPG/storytelling game.

You know I'm pretty skeptical of RPG theory jargon. It's not only opaque in many cases but it often hides the fact that there's no "there" there.

But the general problem that I'm talking about in this thread, which I believe's more or less the same as Sett, is a conceptual divide, not between "hack" & "thesp" as it were but between seeing a difference between hack & thesp and insisting there's no difference.

David, it really seems to me that you don't like Sett, you don't like his delivery, and you don't care for the terms he's chosen...yet pace the concerns Pierce Inverarity raised earlier about overemphasis on Challenge, I'm not sure where my (a) & (b) differ from the descriptions he's used when talking about Adventure/Thematic.

This is rather different from the Nar-vs.-everything-else issue because there, even if you relabeled the GNS terms to make them clearer, they still wouldn't demarcate the same divide as (a) vs. (b). (I'm not sure how familiar you are with the details of GNS. Actually I think the ideas that go into Nar are pretty useful, but it's less than the sum of its parts, particularly when it's used to diagnose problems arising from differences of taste.)

BTW, Kyle, is your avatar a picture of you? If so you look a great deal like James Baker in profile.

Personally, I would like to expunge the word 'story' from this discussion , unless every single user defines his usage of it.

Wow ... didn't expect to still see this thread up when I got back.

While you were doing racking up another eight pages of discussion about how people discuss the way people discuss theory, I went out to a convention and played a dozen awesome games.

I'm just sayin'.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut the general problem that I'm talking about in this thread, which I believe's more or less the same as Sett, is a conceptual divide, not between "hack" & "thesp" as it were but between seeing a difference between hack & thesp and insisting there's no difference.

Elliot, I think Sett's agenda is more Swinish than this. It's not really about a conceptual divide within the same hobby (something I think everyone acknowledges), but rather an attempt on his part using jargon to remove an aspect of the hobby he finds distasteful.

QuoteDavid, it really seems to me that you don't like Sett, you don't like his delivery, and you don't care for the terms he's chosen...yet pace the concerns Pierce Inverarity raised earlier about overemphasis on Challenge, I'm not sure where my (a) & (b) differ from the descriptions he's used when talking about Adventure/Thematic.

It's not that I don't like Sett. I find him disingenuos and hypocritical but it's nothing presonal, just the vibe I get from reading his posts. To be honest I think (a) & (b) with a bit of work could work well with Kyle's Hack/Thesp division although I prefer Action/Thesp myself - much better than Adventure/Thematic. To be clear Elliot, I think (a)& (b) are very real divides, but I think you are going about it the wrong way in labelling them Adventure/Thematic.

As for the overemphasis on challenge...this is where it gets tricky. After reading both Sett's (and yours) posts upthread... I think a dogmatic belief  (on Sett's part) that "challenges" in rpgs should be rigidly defined in a particular manner leads to this kind of muddled thinking. I'm just saying, that if anything, this is where the overlapping between (a) & (b) occurs.

Quote(I'm not sure how familiar you are with the details of GNS. Actually I think the ideas that go into Nar are pretty useful, but it's less than the sum of its parts, particularly when it's used to diagnose problems arising from differences of taste.)

I have read some stuff on GNS. Most stuff I get are from folks like you, droog and Kyle and general theory discussions. Stuff that I found useful from the Forge came from the AP threads.

Regards,
David R

IMHO, Tony - for a guy who talks as much theory as anyone I know here, for you to throw the "Go Play" card is a bit disengenuous...

I'm just sayin'

Quote from: James J SkachIMHO, Tony - for a guy who talks as much theory as anyone I know here, for you to throw the "Go Play" card is a bit disengenuous...

I'm just sayin'

Fair 'nuff.  FWIW, I try (as much as possible) to talk theory from the point of view of how I view my own gaming, or how another person views their own gaming.  I tend to lose interest in discussions where person A talks about how person B thinks person C views person D's gaming.  Dunno whether that's a distinction that makes sense to anyone else, but it informs how I look at things.

Quote from: droogPersonally, I would like to expunge the word 'story' from this discussion , unless every single user defines his usage of it.

Ahem - that´s exactly one reason, why "story games" is a term to be avoided.

Quote from: SettembriniAhem - that´s exactly one reason, why "story games" is a term to be avoided.

Quite. On the other hand, the other proposed divisions are lacking as well. I submit that looking at some specifics makes hash of your schema. These are all games I have played, by the way.

Thematic vs Adventure
Sorcerer=thematic adventure
Donjon=adventure
My Life with Master=thematic
DitV=adventurous thematics
Agon=adventure
Burning Wheel=adventure+theme

cf.
Paranoia=thematic adventure


Expressive vs Experiential
Sorcerer=experiential
Donjon=expressive
DitV=expressive
Agon= experiential
Burning Wheel=experiential+expressive

cf.
HeroQuest=expressive+experiential

I allow for overlap, explicitly so in the case of BW; so, no hash.

Droog,
you misunderstand adventure on every account. I propose we better talk about experiential vs expressive.

That seems to be easier. Except for Sorcerer, that is not experiential, especially after having seen Ron GM and talk about it. It´s expressive, big time. Don´t know about Agon.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI allow for overlap, explicitly so in the case of BW; so, no hash.

Okay, then what's the point unless you're going to say "this is an RPG and this is not." Because you're trying to categorise games into two broad camps according to techniques (or methods), and you're not allowing for the great range of techniques in RPGs.

When I play My Life with Master, I, in my subjectivity, feel that what I'm doing is spiritually close to things I have done in older games such as RQ. It's more focused, certainly, but then, so is Toon or Paranoia.

When I play Dogs in the Vineyard, the family resemblance is so strong as to be undeniable. And a game of Sorcerer is just like some runs of mine in RuneQuest, or Villains & Vigilantes (minus the demons but plus the methods of gamemastering).

I think you guys are being very stuffy in your thinking.

Quote from: SettembriniExcept for Sorcerer, that is not experiential, especially after having seen Ron GM and talk about it.

No way!

Quote from: Elliota) We try to have "what the player knows" roughly match "what the character knows", and "what the player does" maps structurally to "what the character does".

This is Sorcerer.

No, we are not.
You just haven´t got such a wide range of experience as we do. That is my take.

What you are taking, is Ron´s stance: He played Thematic since he started playing. He even thinks Thematic about movies and pop cultural artifacts. He is blind to all other things.

I get the feeling, if DitV comes even close to your RQ-gaming, then you have a pretty narrow range of playstyles.

QuoteOkay, then what's the point unless you're going to say "this is an RPG and this is not." Because you're trying to categorise games into two broad camps according to techniques (or methods), and you're not allowing for the great range of techniques in RPGs.

My bloody point is to avoid denying the RPGness of anything. It´s interesting that you didn´t know this. Misunderstandings all the way. BTW, I more and more get the feeling, that it´s you who doesn´t even know a lot of RPG techniques. Just like Ron.

QuoteThis is Sorcerer.                                                              _________________

No. Definitely not. Sorcerer is [AFAI understood & observed] about "How low can you go?".
There is nothing to explore, nothing to solve, nothing to build.

There aren´t modules or maps or deity listings or whatever for Sorcerer. There is no "interesting place" or "stuff to do".
It´s only moral quandaries.

It´s the penultimate Thematic self-search.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, we are not.
My bloody point is to avoid denying the RPGness of anything. It´s interesting that you didn´t know this. Misunderstandings all the way.

Yes, I get that. But what is the point in making this very broad categorisation, then? Let's just talk about the techniques used in individual games (by all means acknowledging influences).

The place Sorcerer falls is where your and Elliot's definitions split, I think. It's because you're both trying to make a broad classification work with a level of detail that has infinite possibilites.

Mmm.
I think the onus is on you to show us the "adventure" in Sorcerer.
I´m still of the opinion that you aren´t understanding what Elliot and I mean.
And I do so, because when I talked to Ron, he wouldn´t understand it.
He really, really couldn´t wrap his head around it.
It was amazing, I was stunned.

So: I presume there could be other people out there, who don´t understand why one would adventure, just because.

Quote from: SettembriniMmm.
I think the onus is on you to show us the "adventure" in Sorcerer.
I´m still of the opinion that you aren´t understanding what Elliot and I mean.
And I do so, because when I talked to Ron, he wouldn´t understand it.
He really, really couldn´t wrap his head around it.
It was amazing, I was stunned.

So: I presume there could be other people out there, who don´t understand why one would adventure, just because.

Now, don't be a silly boy. You won't get anywhere (if you hadn't noticed) with this you-don't-know-what-you're-doing angle.

Again, when you reduce 'adventure ' to 'modules or maps or deity listings', you're just talking about techniques. I reckon the onus is on you to show that this lack (of modules etc) constitutes a positive quality.

Huh?
That´s pretty obvious and common knowlegde:

Sorcerer is a different kind of game from most other RPGs before it. That´s the public opionion, common wisdom, YOU chose to challenge. Also techniques and structure are an important dimension to seperate things from each other. What´s wrong with that?

As for the rest: I did not say what you implied. I raised the notion, that it could be, that you don´t understand me, because you never have experienced what I have. For example, you haven´t played D&D, AFAIK.
You also said your RQ was JUST LIKE DitV. That´s pretty funky stuff to say, and I´m giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you don´t know better. Elsewise you would be deliberately trolling.
Because it´s plainly, plainly plainly: wrong.

Please review what I actually said, Mr S. It is not your paraphrase.

Mmm. I think we better drop it.

Let´s assume we just don´t understand each other. As in literally not understanding.

I´ll watch while you and Elliot sort it out. He seems to be more on your wavelength.

You are like from another star to me.:confused:

EDIT: Maybe it´s because I´m from Skaro?

Quote from: SettembriniMy bloody point is to avoid denying the RPGness of anything.

Then what the fuck was your first post about?

Quote from: SettembriniI´ll watch while you and Elliot sort it out.

Not for quite a while, likely. I note that we're at an impasse: droog thinks the problem is that Sett & I are working from narrow experience. I agree with Sett that it looks the other way around from here.

Sett's use of "thematic" is risking confusion here when he says Ron played Thematic from the start. I think it's clearer to say that Ron doesn't get experiential play, and probably has little to no experience with wargames, based on the opening of his interview in Flames Rising (http://www.flamesrising.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=52). His Nar is strongly anti-experiential, but that doesn't mean his CoC and Babylon 5 games, which he's described as Sim, were experiential either (for him).