Quote from: RPGPunditExcept that if its a "story-making" game, then its really not a Roleplaying game anymore.

RPGPundit

Certainly not, it's a game in which people play roles, which is a totally alien beast that must be opposed.

Quote from: BalbinusCertainly not, it's a game in which people play roles, which is a totally alien beast that must be opposed.

I'm growing more and more convinced that the distinction is one of the more pointless things ever.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's why the Forgites have so much trouble with our hobby and want to radically transform it by force; its no coincidence that all the things I listed above that can end up clashing with the goal of "creating story" are things that at one time or another, in one form or another, they've tried to somehow alter or excise from RPGs.

You can rest your head here. No one can change the hobby. If WotC tried they wouldn't be able, so you can stop worrying. :rolleyes:

Quote from: ImperatorI'm growing more and more convinced that the distinction is one of the more pointless things ever.

I don't think there is a distinction at all.  I think Dogs, MLwM, Sorceror, Gurps, Runequest, DnD, to me these are all rpgs.

And if some are not, I don't really care.  There are games I like and games I don't, and they don't fit neatly into indie or mainstream categories.

I refuse to get upset because some guy I've never met is playing a game I don't personally enjoy, the idea is frankly bizarre.

Quote from: mythusmageNow you can tell stories about your imaginary adventures or your imaginary life, but that does not make those adventures or that life stories when they are happening. It doesn't happen that way.

Suppose that you meet a man on a streetcorner, extemporizing about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town; and whenever this hero ends up in a dangerous situation, the man flips a coin and lets it decide how badly things turn out. Now, ask the people passing by whether he's telling a story. I think we all know what the answer to that would be.

Then picture some of those passers-by joining in after listening for a while, reaching into their pockets for some loose change and becoming companions to the gunslinger. (A boozehound doctor, a whore with a heart of gold, a kid who wants to be the fastest gun in town: whatever stereotypes of the Wild West strike their fancy.) The man doesn't mind at all, and so now they take turns, each telling about their characters' actions after another. Would any of those who still look at the scene from the outside see it differently from how it used to be in the beginning?

And finally imagine this little ensemble getting tired of standing out there in the open (where they would no doubt get their fair share of strange looks), and heading to a local bar where they continue the adventure over refreshments. Furthermore, imagine that a local group of roleplayers uses the backroom of that very same bar for their weekly game of Deadlands, about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town. What is the distinction between the gamers and those who met earlier on the street?

Quote from: BalbinusI don't think there is a distinction at all.  I think Dogs, MLwM, Sorceror, Gurps, Runequest, DnD, to me these are all rpgs.

And if some are not, I don't really care.  There are games I like and games I don't, and they don't fit neatly into indie or mainstream categories.

This is the first time that particular opposition has been brought into this thread--best to keep it out IMO; it only muddies the waters in light of the existence of games such as The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen, Puppetland, Once Upon a Time--not to mention all the technically "creator owned" games that are thoroughly traditional RPGs in terms of mechanics.

QuoteI refuse to get upset because some guy I've never met is playing a game I don't personally enjoy, the idea is frankly bizarre.

The conversation has gone through a bunch of twists and turns but I believe it headed down this path when blakkie asserted without qualification that RPGs are tools for creating a story. Disagreeing with that claim doesn't have anything to do with telling other people how to play their games, does it? The point that a number of us are pushing is that there's a difference between creating a story and assuming a role. Sometimes the two can be combined fairly effectively (as in improv and, perhaps, Puppetland) but that doesn't make them identical, and it's possible to pursue one without the other.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe conversation has gone through a bunch of twists and turns but I believe it headed down this path when blakkie asserted without qualification that RPGs are tools for creating a story. Disagreeing with that claim doesn't have anything to do with telling other people how to play their games, does it? The point that a number of us are pushing is that there's a difference between creating a story and assuming a role. Sometimes the two can be combined fairly effectively (as in improv and, perhaps, Puppetland) but that doesn't make them identical, and it's possible to pursue one without the other.

Absolutely, I was responding to Pundit's characterisation of the games, which I don't really agree with.  But sure, creating a story and assuming a role are different endeavours that can be combined but need not be.

Crossed wires, then.

I feel dumber after reading this thread.

-O

Quote from: obrynI feel dumber after reading this thread.

-O

I thought the first two pages - or at least page 2 as I remember it - were actually getting somewhere.

Then it got all Internet-ed up.

Quote from: ImperatorYou can rest your head here. No one can change the hobby. If WotC tried they wouldn't be able, so you can stop worrying. :rolleyes:

You must be very young (as a roleplayer anyways); or else you'd remember that in fact, White Wolf almost DID change the hobby.  They proved it can be done; it just costs the life of 9/10ths of the hobby; they almost destroyed gaming, but they also almost changed it.

Thank god, we stopped them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou must be very young (as a roleplayer anyways); or else you'd remember that in fact, White Wolf almost DID change the hobby.  They proved it can be done; it just costs the life of 9/10ths of the hobby; they almost destroyed gaming, but they also almost changed it.

Thank god, we stopped them.

RPGPundit

What the christ kind of alternate reality do you remember?  White Wolf filled the void left by the gutting of TSR and brought in entirely new gamers.  This is completely out of left field.

You make a lot of sense when you aren't rambling about your RPG conspiracy theories.

Quote from: GrimGentSuppose that you meet a man on a streetcorner, extemporizing about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town; and whenever this hero ends up in a dangerous situation, the man flips a coin and lets it decide how badly things turn out. Now, ask the people passing by whether he's telling a story. I think we all know what the answer to that would be.

Then picture some of those passers-by joining in after listening for a while, reaching into their pockets for some loose change and becoming companions to the gunslinger. (A boozehound doctor, a whore with a heart of gold, a kid who wants to be the fastest gun in town: whatever stereotypes of the Wild West strike their fancy.) The man doesn't mind at all, and so now they take turns, each telling about their characters' actions after another. Would any of those who still look at the scene from the outside see it differently from how it used to be in the beginning?

And finally imagine this little ensemble getting tired of standing out there in the open (where they would no doubt get their fair share of strange looks), and heading to a local bar where they continue the adventure over refreshments. Furthermore, imagine that a local group of roleplayers uses the backroom of that very same bar for their weekly game of Deadlands, about the adventures of a wandering gunslinger come to bring justice to a lawless town. What is the distinction between the gamers and those who met earlier on the street?

You are the first person I've ever read who tried to erase a distinction that is there. I have to ask, do you in any way understand what you were trying to say?

So we have a guy who's telling a story, and using chance to decide how the story will go at decision points. No different really than what other story tellers do when they have to decide how the story goes. But then you turned it into a roleplaying game by allowing others to take part and take control of characters. The nature of the event changed.

You are deliberately missing the point, things don't have to be anything. Things are what they are. The mice in Maus are stand ins for the Jews during the holocaust, and that's all they need to be. RPG play does not have to be story, it is enough for it to be imaginary lives in an imaginary world. A shared experience between the players.

Do we get a better experience when we think of RPGs as story? No. If anything, we get a worse experience. By insisting on treating play as tied to story we limit we we are willing to do. We limit our options and so limit our enjoyment. We limit ourselves to following a plot, and we limit ourselves to the tropes of fiction or the particular genre the game seeks to emulate. And these limitations aren't necessary. The hard-nosed, cynical, burnt out, alcoholic gumshoe with the secret hots for his secretary is not limited to stories.

And I'll tell you one big beef I have with RPGs as story. It makes the players think their characters are the damn heroes. What do you get with that kind of thinking? You get bitching and moaning and acting like a spoiled brat whenever their characters get killed. Adventuring has just two rules. Rule number one is, adventurers die. Rule number two is, you can't change rule number one.

Let me put that in more basic terms. There are two rules to life. The first rule is, people die. The second rule is, you can't change rule number one. Adventuring, war, crossing the street all have casualties, and you're not going to change it. By insisting on making RPGs into story, and giving the PCs authorial immunity, you are degrading the experience and cheating the players of the full experience possible in a good session.

Let your games live. Let them have as much of the range of possibility as they can, mindful of the limitations inherent in this new, incohoate art. We really don't know what RPGs could do, and we never will know so long as we continue to crowd them into the ghetto of story.

As I said over on the Theory board, I think there is a massive difference in the approaches of players who came into this hobby before videogames and those who came after.

Mythusmage's view of RPGs is a perfect example of an attitude held by many "old school" players.  

QuoteAdventuring has just two rules. Rule number one is, adventurers die. Rule number two is, you can't change rule number one.

Mortality.  Chance.  Skill.  

Compare that to the Phantasy Star series.  There you play through one set story.  Play PSIV ten thousand times and your ten thousandth play will be pretty much like your fiftieth.  Your characters have inviolable plot immunity.  Death is a status effect.

That's enough to make you puke your guts up, right?  But this is the product that has killed tabletop RPGs dead.  Blame it anything you like, but generations of gamers now have enjoyed and internalized these games, and they seek out experiences that will reflect that.

Last week I dug up my old HeroQuest box.  Inside were a bunch of yellowed character sheets from my first RPG.  A friend of mine and I had been so shaken up by the experience of Final Fantasy II that we played through a free-form, largely diceless game as a sort of spinoff.  (Yes, this means I invented Wushu as a nine-year-old.  Please withhold your death threats.)  This was maybe two weeks before my buddy's mother introduced us to box set D&D.

And there you may well have the dividing line.

Even now, new generations of gamers are playing, enjoying and internalizing games that make those old 16-bit RPGs look like Keep on the Borderlands.  Final Fantasy XII is infamous for its "Gambit System", through which it plays itself.

The PlayStation 2 is unthinkably ancient to kids in their early teens.  That would make this "young" medium of RPGs something akin to the Trilobite in their minds.

So let the designers fiddle.  Maybe the GNS guys will figure out how to capture this new imagination.  Maybe it'll be one of the more traditional indies, like the guys who post here.  Maybe WotC will find the perfect formula with D&D 4e or 5e.

All I know is: my desires have ever been different from the guys who came before me; the desires of the guys who came after me are just as different from mine.  Only God knows what the generation after theirs will want.

Games will have to shift to meet those desires.  Unless, of course, you want to go the way of Advanced Squad Leader.

I find exactly the opposite to be true. Video game players seek out paper-n-pencil games because of what it gives them that videogames won't. Otherwise they'd have stuck with videogames and left it at that.