Quote from: flyingmice;340515If you feel these games are RPGs, then they are to you. If not, no. Because of this the world is shaken to the core, millions commit suicide, and the sun goes out.

-clash

And me without my sweater.

It's a shared hobby and a shared experience.  I may not think of Clue as an RPG, but if someone else can immerse themselves in the complicated depths of Col. Mustard, and his compulsive polishing of a certain candlestick in the library, more power to them.

Quote from: flyingmice;340515If you feel these games are RPGs, then they are to you. If not, no. Because of this the world is shaken to the core, millions commit suicide, and the sun goes out.

So no matter how I reply, we're all doomed.

Somehow, I always suspected it would be my fault...

What was the saying? I may not be able to define it, but I can certainly point at something that isn't it when I see it.

I find it hard to put games like "Breaking the Ice", or "The Mountain Witch" into my RPG games lists. I'm not saying in anyway they are bad games. I'm saying what they do is so narrow that they lack important choices I find needful in things /I/ would call an RPG.

 Of course I expect someone to argue, they always do. I like games that aren't RPG's. I  rather like Rezolution (miniature game), I'm fond of chess, and have a great time with board games from time to time. Yet if I say those things are "Not an RPG,' no one tends to get bent out of shape over it. It's interesting to see people try and warp what an RPG is, to include things that aren't RPG's into their fandom. Yet for me, I don't need games I like to all fit in some nice little box someone else arrange. (Metaphorically, I like actual box sets for the most part.)

Quote from: flyingmice;340467If one isn't playing roles and/or it's not a game, I would be a bit upset if I bought it as an RPG. I'm not going to castigate it publicly, though, especially if I liked it anyway. I may be wrong about the roles/games thing, and my taste is manifestly not everyone's. Particularly RPGNet's...

Part of my definition, though, is the assumption that no one's going to make any claims that are terribly far afield. There's no mileage in claiming ones game is an RPG when it isn't. Probably you could make a business case for claiming it's NOT when it IS though.

Quote from: Silverlion;340518What was the saying? I may not be able to define it, but I can certainly point at something that isn't it when I see it.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description "obscenity"; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
     
— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964)

Quote from: flyingmice;340505So? Agree to disagree about it. When you define from center, the border is always undefined. That's a feature, not a bug. Decide what that means in your group, and let other groups define it the way they want. I don't get the need to define for others where these borders are. If they want borders, let them draw their own.

I think we need some way of talking about the stuff we enjoy. Unfortunately I find that many of the critical terms used are themselves so contentious that people throw up their hands, in just the way you're doing here, Clash.

Immersion, realism, roleplaying (game), plot, story...

I disagree with throwing up of hands, but I would really like, as well, to dispense with the ridiculous freaking out that happens whenever someone voices an opinion. I think we ought to see things this way: when someone says "I don't think X is an RPG", instead of freaking out, or trying to shoosh the person for fear someone is going to freak out, we ought to try to understand what it is the person means.

If someone says "Because game Y contains X, it's not a roleplaying game," that doesn't necessarily mean they think Y is crap. It does mean that X somehow misses an essential RPG-ness in the person's mind, and IMO that ought to be respected and, if you feel like it, it can be explored further.

The converse is the threads I've seen again and again where someone tries to argue that someone's subjective reaction to a given game is mistaken.

You can call "picking up dogshit and putting it in your shirt pocket" a Role Playing Game.  But I don't care what you call it, because I wouldn't want to play it.  

The only categorization/question that matters is "what type of games that people call role playing games are fun for you to play"?

Which, of course, is a completely subjective answer.  

Once you find that game, go play it.

I think I have offered a definition that holds up to scientific principles as well as being useful for day to day discussion:

Method of Roleplaying:
"Advancement of fictious situations through verbal exchange."

RPGs (analytical term: adventure role assumption hobby games):
"Those leisure activities that have the MoR as a central mechanic and are historically-genetically derived from D&D"

That leaves us with the possibility of differentiating between a method and a historic artifact.

The thing to discuss then would be the the degree in which a given game is related to D&D. In that sense, a given game can technically be a "leisure activity that uses the MoR" and might be called Hobby RPG, whereas it might deviate enough from D&D as to be not within the analytical term of "adventure role assumption hobby game".
Most of those would analytically be called: "thematic role assumption hobby games".

So there´s a big difference between a phenomelogical definition and the shorthand "RPG". A literal reading of ROLE PLAYING GAME does not lead anywhere.

I think most of the thematic games are also historically derived from D&D, though. I'll bet you can find the not-so-missing links in games like Vampire, and possibly Pendragon, through Over the Edge.

On the other hand your Method of Roleplaying is rigorous and I have no objection to a broad-tent view of "the hobby" that includes all the games that use it. But: I think that calling it a "method of roleplaying" is really just a political veil. IMO it would be more accurate to call it a "method of pretend".

BTW this may be of interest, and peripherally relevant: The Political-Military Exercise as a Teaching Device in Political Science: A Handbook. Final Report. (3.3 MB PDF).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340528I think we need some way of talking about the stuff we enjoy. Unfortunately I find that many of the critical terms used are themselves so contentious that people throw up their hands, in just the way you're doing here, Clash.

Immersion, realism, roleplaying (game), plot, story...

I disagree with throwing up of hands, but I would really like, as well, to dispense with the ridiculous freaking out that happens whenever someone voices an opinion. I think we ought to see things this way: when someone says "I don't think X is an RPG", instead of freaking out, or trying to shoosh the person for fear someone is going to freak out, we ought to try to understand what it is the person means.

If someone says "Because game Y contains X, it's not a roleplaying game," that doesn't necessarily mean they think Y is crap. It does mean that X somehow misses an essential RPG-ness in the person's mind, and IMO that ought to be respected and, if you feel like it, it can be explored further.

The converse is the threads I've seen again and again where someone tries to argue that someone's subjective reaction to a given game is mistaken.

I'm not throwing up my hands! I'm saying let's agree to disagree. That way we can talk without hate-filled rancor. Where each of us is going to draw the line is arbitrary, so let's stop pretending it's something objective on any side. It's purely subjective, and any attempt to make our particular favorite boundary condition seem anything else is just rationalizing. if we can accept these things as matters of taste rather than matters of principle, the sooner we can discuss them as they really are.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340537I think most of the thematic games are also historically derived from D&D, though. I'll bet you can find the no-so-missing links in games like Vampire, and possibly Pendragon, through Over the Edge.

On the other hand your Method of Roleplaying is rigorous and I have no objection to a broad-tent view of "the hobby" that includes all the games that use it. But: I think that calling it a "method of roleplaying" is really just a political veil. IMO it would be more accurate to call it a "method of pretend".

BTW this may be of interest, and peripherally relevant: The Political-Military Exercise as a Teaching Device in Political Science: A Handbook. Final Report. (3.3 MB PDF).

Yes, genetically speaking, all Forger games are inherintly D&D derivates. But they break with some of the foundational assumptions in a way that in effect a new hobby branch is created. Like in music, where clearly R'n'R is different from R'n'B, Blues and Country. With mixings and lines of (retroactive) inspiration all over.

I´m not married to the exact term "MoR" if MoPretend is better, you can use that. I always highlighted & argued that the MoR/P is as old as division of labour. Fact is, if you really want to argue phenomelogically as implicitly the literal reading of "RPG" does, you don´t get around referencing D&D for a specific mix of attributes.

Elliot,

the quintessential element that fucks up genetic discussions is:

There are people that have been introduced to the MoR/P via D&D ONLY (mind boggling, I know). So they take the part for the whole.
And are technically D&D derivates, whereas they abolish all other things of the "RPG hobby".

It gets real weird when these people equate the whole of the hobby with people that like to use the MoR/P! This is what I would call a great fallacy, as it´s a basic fallacy leading to consecutive others.

When the speaker doesn't like it and is looking for rhetorical ammo.

No offense, but I think it is a cop-out to say that there can only be subjective definitions of what a RPG is. There can be an objective, testable definition of a RPG and with that a discussion can actually progress.

Quote from: Settembrini;340541Yes, genetically speaking, all Forger games are inherintly D&D derivates. But they break with some of the foundational assumptions in a way that in effect a new hobby branch is created. Like in music, where clearly R'n'R is different from R'n'B, Blues and Country. With mixings and lines of (retroactive) inspiration all over.

I can sort of buy that, but you know, a bird is a kind of dinosaur. I.e., it is not a genetic distinction to which you are pointing, but an aesthetic one.

Also, possibly important, the distinction IMO relies as much on "what comes after" as it does on any break with "what came before". That is a seminal or foundational work of a new genre would only be an interesting/odd exemplar of an existing genre, were it not for the fact that it was subsequently copied and developed further.

Quote from: Settembrini;340542Elliot,

the quintessential element that fucks up genetic discussions is:

There are people that have been introduced to the MoR/P via D&D ONLY (mind boggling, I know). So they take the part for the whole.
And are technically D&D derivates, whereas they abolish all other things of the "RPG hobby".

It gets real weird when these people equate the whole of the hobby with people that like to use the MoR/P! This is what I would call a great fallacy, as it´s a basic fallacy leading to consecutive others.

I'm not sure I understand this. You seem to be saying that the basic fallacy comes from ARS-players not realizing that "Thematic" games are also RPGs.