Quote from: jibbajibba;342131I would have agreed with that up until the point when I was asked was FoD an RPG. I had to think about it pretty hard. To me the freedom of expression for characters to do what they like has always been key to RPGs but then I thought... is WoW an RGP. and Yes I think it is. Did it piss me off because I can't ride into battle on a horse? Did it piss me off becuase I don't want to kill everything I meet? you bet. Is it an RPG ... probably. What differentiates it from FoD or Space Hulk? Almost nothing... so I made the call and decided that FoD was an RGP too so Space hulk must be.

So they are RPGs with very narrow scope of allowable actions and as you say limited role fulfilment.

I don' know Jibbajibba, much as I love FoD and Space Hulk, I wouldn't call either an RPG. I'm with camazotz on this one:

QuoteIt seems to me that a defining point of "RPG vs. not" is whether you can step out of the context of the rules as written, to do something unanticipated, but permissable in context.

On the other hand I really admire your open-mindedness on this - it puts the rest of us to shame, and is probably a much more important thing to try and emulate than worrying about abstract definitions of what makes an rpg an rpg

Quote from: Glazer;342141On the other hand I really admire your open-mindedness on this - it puts the rest of us to shame, and is probably a much more important thing to try and emulate than worrying about abstract definitions of what makes an rpg an rpg

Yeah but when I play escape from Colditz each one of my little counters has his own name, a backstory and a signature escape methodogy

Quote from: RPGPundit;342076The accusation that Amber often has leveled against it (wrongly, i would say) is that the GM has TOO MUCH power, not too little.

Yeah, I can see that.  But, like you, I agree that is a wrong assumption, that I think is focusing too much on the "diceless" aspect of it.

QuoteAnd you're right that Amber is not a game that a beginner GM can easily handle; but the issue is not because the GM has too little authority to control details, but so much direct authority that a beginner GM might not handle it well.
It requires, most especially, that a GM be fair, and not attempt to control a "STORY"; because if anyone can, its the GM, in Amber.

Maybe you are right.  I wish I could say my experience differs, but I simply don't have enough direct experience to know.  I am basing most of my opinion on simply reading the rules.  Perhaps I am assuming a scenario with experienced RPG players and an inexperienced GM.  Sure, it could play out that the GM tries to "control a story", but it seemed to me that the bigger risk would be the players trying to do that, given the setting and powers.

QuoteThe real issue is that NO ONE should be trying to control "narrative" in the sense of "story" because the point of an RPG isn't to try to tell a "story". Its to play in an emulated world.

RPGPundit

Well, you and I may disagree on the role of story in RPGs.  I do not think telling a story should be the primary goal of an RPG.  You are right that playing a character immersed in a world is the primary goal.  But I do think a "campaign" can have as one aspect an underlying story, and that telling that story can be an enjoyable (though not primary) aspect of an RPG.

For example I do not think there is anything wrong, for example, with a GM setting up well in advance a showdown with the big bad guy at the end of a planned campaign, with a series of events like a slave revolt or the intervention of a deity, which will happen regardless of character action.  All of those are elements of a story which will surround the characters as they play in this world.  As long as the goal of the game is not the story, but the character play, I think those story elements are fine (and sometimes good).

Quote from: camazotz;342129What about Space Hulk?

It seems to me that a defining point of "RPG vs. not" is whether you can step out of the context of the rules as written, to do something unanticipated, but permissable in context. So in Space Hulk, you could adapt the role of a space marine, sure, but you can not, say, decide to break in to the circuit board of a computer terminal to wire a door shut in order to trap a gene-stealer inside (well, not so far as I recall) or decide to shed your suit and wiggle down a ventilation duct to get to a hard to reach area for some reason. Things like that can and must be possible in an RPG to allow for the possibility of action a character could take, to let you feel like you are really there; but a board game limits choice of action, so you no matter how much you pretend you're so-and-so hunting dracula or gene-stealers or whatnot, you can't actually fulfill your role as intended, because the rules offer a closed scope.

Just an idea....that the real question here is open vs. closed scope of rules, allowing vs. limiting role fulfillment.

Yes and no. I have played with a GM who would not allow any action that was not covered by the (abstracted) combat rules.

When I said I want my character to run past the temple guard, maybe exchanging a blow or outright trying to dodge him, he didn't invent a rule, a modifier or similar, he said "make an attack roll".
"Success."
"Roll damage."
" I didn't try to hurt him."
"The only consequence an attack roll can have is damage. Roll. Now he hits back."

Did the game stop being an RPG at that point?

C'mon you guys. Let's not do this rather silly dance messing about with boardgames. It's really rather a silly comparison to make. Do certain boardgames have rpg-like elements to them ? Sure they do.

What this thread really is about is whether the so-called Story/Forge games are really rpgs. Glazer seems to think they are not because they "push different"  emotional buttons in him. If I remember right, he was talking about player narrative control and shaping the "story". Of course when playing diceless games, my players - and this is where, they like to quote kyle - say, "is like a porno without the money shot".

Do they think it's not an rpg just because it pushes...well...no emotional buttons? Of course not. It's just not their type of game.

So, let's not play these little rhetorical boardgames.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;342257What this thread really is about is whether the so-called Story/Forge games are really rpgs.

David, you're coming at this like I've got some weird anti-indie-game agenda going on. I really don't. I consider Dogs In The Vineyard, in particular, is a spectacular piece of design. The other game that has impressed me recently is Swords & Wizardry.

However, what I get from these two games – what appeals to me about them – is, from my own personal and therefore very subjective perspective, hugely different. And I find that fascinating.

What you see me doing here is taking part in a debate that helps me to understand what those different appeals actually are – moving from a general 'feeling' to specific examples, if you will. I want to know the specifics, as it helps me focus in on the things that really matter to me about those games, so I can emphasize them in play, and also so I can look for those specific aspects in other games I might want to add to my collection.

The place that I'm getting too – this is an evolving process – is that both DitV and S&W are indeed different styles of game, in the same way that Eurogames and Ameritrash games are different types of board game, or that film noir and kung-fu films are different types of movie. Therefore I will look for different things from them when I play them, and will look for different qualities in new games I might want to add to my collection depending on which category I think they belong to. Jolly helpful stuff, I'm sure you'll agree

For the purposes of this debate, I'm not sure if this means its better to give them there own labels as sub-genres of rpgs (as I think you feel), or that one is an rpg and the other something that deserves its own label (which is what I think RPGpundit is arguing for). However, this interests me less than identifying the qualities that define the two types of game.

I hope that all makes sense – I know it does to me!

Quote from: jibbajibba;342131I would have agreed with that up until the point when I was asked was FoD an RPG. I had to think about it pretty hard. To me the freedom of expression for characters to do what they like has always been key to RPGs but then I thought... is WoW an RGP. and Yes I think it is. Did it piss me off because I can't ride into battle on a horse? Did it piss me off becuase I don't want to kill everything I meet? you bet. Is it an RPG ... probably. What differentiates it from FoD or Space Hulk? Almost nothing... so I made the call and decided that FoD was an RGP too so Space hulk must be.

So they are RPGs with very narrow scope of allowable actions and as you say limited role fulfilment.

Given how much intensive role playing goes on in my wife's guild on an RP server for WoW (Wyrmrest Accord) I am inclined to agree.....although in some weird way the RP element is almost like a "game within a game," although they try to structure goals and events around things you can actually do "in game." I suppose one might imagine that a game can have limited scope, or have role playing as a pure option like FoD or Spacehulk (you don't need to role-play your marine, but you can, for example), but such games might not be considered true RPGs if the "representation of yourself as an alter ego within the game" is not a theatrical requirement, whereas a defined RPG would necessarily require such for the full immersion of the experience. Maybe....very hard to say on this one. It might be that "RPG" is a label too broad, and requires subsets, such as "open-ended world-immersive RPG" vs. "closed system limited-immersion boardgame with role playing theatrics," vs. "MMORPG in which you can play without being in character, but tools are provided to allow for in-character immersion if desired," and so forth.

Quote from: Glazer;342260David, you're coming at this like I've got some weird anti-indie-game agenda going on. I really don't. I consider Dogs In The Vineyard, in particular, is a spectacular piece of design. The other game that has impressed me recently is Swords & Wizardry.

However, what I get from these two games – what appeals to me about them – is, from my own personal and therefore very subjective perspective, hugely different. And I find that fascinating.

What you see me doing here is taking part in a debate that helps me to understand what those different appeals actually are – moving from a general 'feeling' to specific examples, if you will. I want to know the specifics, as it helps me focus in on the things that really matter to me about those games, so I can emphasize them in play, and also so I can look for those specific aspects in other games I might want to add to my collection.

The place that I'm getting too – this is an evolving process – is that both DitV and S&W are indeed different styles of game, in the same way that Eurogames and Ameritrash games are different types of board game, or that film noir and kung-fu films are different types of movie. Therefore I will look for different things from them when I play them, and will look for different qualities in new games I might want to add to my collection depending on which category I think they belong to. Jolly helpful stuff, I'm sure you'll agree

For the purposes of this debate, I'm not sure if this means its better to give them there own labels as sub-genres of rpgs (as I think you feel), or that one is an rpg and the other something that deserves its own label (which is what I think RPGpundit is arguing for). However, this interests me less than identifying the qualities that define the two types of game.

I hope that all makes sense – I know it does to me!

I would consider both of those examples RPGs, although to throw my own bit in the mix I think many indie RPGs break the mold when it comes to how the RPG is structured. My favorite example of such is Burning Wheel, which is the first game that I have encountered in which I found myself completely baffled, initially, and then subsequently turned off by the play mechanics as being too foreign to the RPG experience for my tastes. Can and do they work? Yes. Do they work to my style? Not at all. But it's still an RPG.....just not one which adopts the conventional norms of the traditional conventions and mechanics I am used to. There are quite a few RPGs floating around like that now, but they are all still RPGs, be the SotC with its lack of experience mechanics and focus on tight one-shots/mini campaigns, Don't Rest Your Head with it's dice pools and weirdness (I love DRYH, but would prefer to use it as a conceptual background while using CoC mechanics or something else) or even something like My Life With Master. Hell, I'd argue that that recent card game (I forget the name, exactly....Minion???) in which you all play minions of the evil overlords trying to blame your failures on one another is an RPG, but highly, highly specific in focus and subject.

Quote from: camazotz;342278I would consider both of those examples RPGs, although to throw my own bit in the mix I think many indie RPGs break the mold when it comes to how the RPG is structured. My favorite example of such is Burning Wheel, which is the first game that I have encountered in which I found myself completely baffled, initially, and then subsequently turned off by the play mechanics as being too foreign to the RPG experience for my tastes. Can and do they work? Yes. Do they work to my style? Not at all. But it's still an RPG.....just not one which adopts the conventional norms of the traditional conventions and mechanics I am used to. There are quite a few RPGs floating around like that now, but they are all still RPGs, be the SotC with its lack of experience mechanics and focus on tight one-shots/mini campaigns, Don't Rest Your Head with it's dice pools and weirdness (I love DRYH, but would prefer to use it as a conceptual background while using CoC mechanics or something else) or even something like My Life With Master. Hell, I'd argue that that recent card game (I forget the name, exactly....Minion???) in which you all play minions of the evil overlords trying to blame your failures on one another is an RPG, but highly, highly specific in focus and subject.

I think you come down to 2 options.
Do we have a broad definition of RPGS which might well extend out to games like Space Hulk or FoD? Or do we have a very narrow specific defition of RPGS which not only excludes these but excludes many others for various, usually subjective reasons?
Now I think the former is more empirical. I certainly wouldn't want to exclude Buffy or James Bond as RPGs because they have elements of narrative control. I wouldn't want to exclude Virtual or Wiki games becuase they weren't played over a tabletop. I woudln't want to exclude games with no or shared GMs.
So I would rather take an open stance RPGs as a Broad Church but then maybe have more specific sub-categories. Board games with RPG elements (Bored PGs ?), Story Games, Larp, etc etc. At a push we could even probably squeeze 4e into one of these sub categories

Quote from: Glazer;342260I hope that all makes sense – I know it does to me!

It does Glazer and I apologize for the tone of my post.

Yours is an interesting perspective but IMO it's disingenuos (I'm not signalling you out specifically) to bring in board games into these discussion. It always starts with someone saying "And so, if I use - board game x -am I still playing an rpg ?" or some such varient.

There are more than enough contentious examples of actual games (depending on ones perspective or agenda), role playing games, to debate over.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jibbajibba;342287So I would rather take an open stance RPGs as a Broad Church but then maybe have more specific sub-categories. Board games with RPG elements (Bored PGs ?), Story Games, Larp, etc etc. At a push we could even probably squeeze 4e into one of these sub categories

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I know you're not sure about the terms, but it's the same kind of thinking that underpins terms like Ameritrash and Eurogame, both of which I think are gaining traction as accepted and defined terms for subcategories of board game.

Quote from: David R;342295Yours is an interesting perspective but IMO it's disingenuos (I'm not signalling you out specifically) to bring in board games into these discussion. It always starts with someone saying "And so, if I use - board game x -am I still playing an rpg ?" or some such varient.

There are more than enough contentious examples of actual games (depending on ones perspective or agenda), role playing games, to debate over.

This is a good point, and made me start to thing about games that a) I like, and b) are perceived of as rpgs, but c) I don't think they really are rpgs.

The best example I could think of off the top of my head are The Shab-al-Hiri Roach and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Both are great games, but I wouldn't call either an rpg, not even as a sub-category. To me they are great party games with some role-playing elements

Quote from: Glazer;342299This is a good point, and made me start to thing about games that a) I like, and b) are perceived of as rpgs, but c) I don't think they really are rpgs.

The best example I could think of off the top of my head are The Shab-al-Hiri Roach and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Both are great games, but I wouldn't call either an rpg, not even as a sub-category. To me they are great party games with some role-playing elements

And on the other end are a (very) few board games that truly are RPG's: Car Wars, Battlestations!.

In both cases, the GM is permitted/encouraged to go beyond the letter of the rules, to present the game as a challenge to the characters (and  their players). In both cases, there are adventures in print that are roleplaying adventures. In both cases, it's clear the intent is both boardgame play and RPG play (it's explicit in Battlestations!)

And then there's GDW's En Garde!. It looks, smells, feels like an RPG, except that the turn scale is weeks, not seconds/minutes.

Quote from: aramis;342086Nope, sorry, dead wrong on that. If a story doesn't emerge, then the play is usually not being any good.

Story emerges from good play. Period. A story resulting is almost the axiomatic symptom of good play.

Then again, to paraphrase from the Car Wars adventure Convoy, if all one wants is random encounters without any linking sense nor story, that's a hell of a lot easier to write.

All of the best RPG "stories" I've heard have come out of the unexpected (ie. RANDOM) things that have happened due not to some Player deciding something should happen in the world, or some GM deciding something should happen to the players, but as a spontaneous result of the play process.

Generally, those who advocate that either the GM or the Players should try to actively "create" story and that rules should be created to try to jam story into the environment are those who have been failures at the RPG experience.

RPGPundit

Quote from: camazotz;342115Hmmm.....my gut reaction to this statement was, "no, you have got to be kidding." But then about two seconds later I realized that you are exactly right on this. If you play the game as a world-emulator, then stories will arise from it, but if you play the game as a story-telling vehicle, then usually the part of the experience that "puts you there" will get lost, as it's easy to derive stories from an emulated world, but much harder to get a world out of a single story experience.

After twenty eight years of gaming, I can tell you that those games and campaigns which were most memorable were the ones where everyone started "here" and then somehow ended up "way the hell over there, through deeds and misfortunes most amazing," but almost every story-centered experience usually lasted only one or two sessions at most; a brief "wow that was a cool story" moment followed by vapors....usually, some events of the story are well remembered, but the lasting value of having "been there and done that" is non-existent, as the knowledge that you were basically following a script removed a certain level of player-control in the experience.

Exactly.

RPGPundit