I have my own opinions, close to Pundit and many others around here of what an RPG is and isn't. However, I'm willing to give a game like WFRP3 the benefit of the doubt for now. So I realize that there's a split somewhere in there.
On the other side from me, there are the people who seem to think that calling something an RPG makes it one.
So how about you? When does a game stop being an RPG for you?
I do realize this will turn into a flamewar, but hopefully it will be entertaining, and some useful stuff will come out of it in the process.
Step 1- Someone will contend that games where a battlemat or other physical artifacts are needed to play BtB are no loger RPGs, but boardgames.
Step 2- D&D 4E will be tagged.
Step 3- The 4E defense brigade will move to the sound of battle: their "favorite game" being attacked.
Step 4- At least 30 pages of needless personal attacks will ensue.
Step 5- I'll still read the thread for sheer entertainment value.
All snark aside, I think that the question you pose is actually quite intriguing. I'm inclined to think that going too far towards boardgame mechanics makes an RPG become a boardgame, but going too far the other direction makes an RPG become cooperative story hour.
The specifics on where those two borders exist, though, will largely be a matter of taste and opinion for each person.
For me, I need to give it some more thought before I can articulate my opinion.
For me, if people still play roles, and it's a game, then it's an RPG. I'm not a purist. That doesn't mean I will automatically like the result, mind!
-clash
Thanks for the replies. I ask this question because I tend to agree with Clash's post, but my current game in progress has an abstract combat system that superficially resembles a board game.
For me, the line is when you start taking things away:
-The GM and player roles
-Freedom of choice to take any action within a character's power
-Freedom to run any type of story that can conceivably happen in a setting.
-Rules that serve as a framework for the game. Though I prefer them to represent the "physics" of the setting, I'd still consider something an RPG if it did the rest. I just might not play it.
Stuff like that. I'm not so concerned with how you get there, just that you can do the things above and more.
The idealized form is a book, some dice, paper, pencil, a group of player and a referee. Each player playing an individual character that advances in capabilities as challenges in the campaign are overcome. Each session is linked to the previous session in plot.
However this idealized form started in miniature wargaming. So there this large area where there is a lot of intermediate steps leading to the idealized form above. Many of these intermediate steps continued to be used to this day.
So defining an exact break point is an exercise in futility. The extremes are easily seen as different forms of gaming but the middle is a muddled mess subject to personal preference.
To make matter worse even in the idealized form you could use a wargame to resolve some aspect of the game. For example the player leading an army.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;340457Thanks for the replies. I ask this question because I tend to agree with Clash's post, but my current game in progress has an abstract combat system that superficially resembles a board game.
See
In Harm's Way: Aces in Spaces,
IHW: Aces And Angels, and
IHW: Wild Blue. Air combat is pretty much a board game, pushing markers around on an abstract flow chart. No one has ever said they aren't RPGs. I wouldn't worry about that, MM.
-clash
Here's my opinion. I'll define what RPGs are, not what they aren't.
- A face to face game played at a table.
- Players take on fictional roles.
- Players share an imagined space where their characters exist.
- Randomization or resource management or a combination is used to determine actions or evens in this imagined space.
Really, that's all I need. If you're not at a table, not playing a role, not in an imagined space, or don't have some kind of rules for things that happen, you probably aren't playing an RPG.
If the author claims it's an RPG that's good enough for me. I don't see a ton of value in getting this categorization precise, though.
Edit: except as a way to bash things I don't like, of course.
Quote from: Maddman;340462Here's my opinion. I'll define what RPGs are, not what they aren't.
- A face to face game played at a table.
- Players take on fictional roles.
- Players share an imagined space where their characters exist.
- Randomization or resource management or a combination is used to determine actions or evens in this imagined space.
Really, that's all I need. If you're not at a table, not playing a role, not in an imagined space, or don't have some kind of rules for things that happen, you probably aren't playing an RPG.
So you an't role play over a Vid link? or to extend it over a Virtual environment or a wiki then its not an RPG?
Quote from: Halfjack;340465If the author claims it's an RPG that's good enough for me. I don't see a ton of value in getting this categorization precise, though.
Edit: except as a way to bash things I don't like, of course.
If 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... :D
-clash
Roleplaying: Players assume the role of characters in a story/adventure/scenario (whatever you want to call it) and decide how those characters act and react to situations encountered in the course of play. A GM may or may not be present as well.
Game: There are rules to determine the success and failure of the actions of the player characters.
Quote from: jibbajibba;340466So you an't role play over a Vid link? or to extend it over a Virtual environment or a wiki then its not an RPG?
I have to chime in with this.
I have 2 live groups and one online group, and the online group has better roleplay than the live ones do, sometimes.
Two considerations.
1. Does the game product itself lay claim to "belonging to the genre of RPGs" (by e.g. saying this on its cover)?
If the answer here is yes, that's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for it actually being a RPG (see the respective examples of OD&D and [insert game you'd like to knock on]), but it's a good indication as to which market the producer wants to tap into, which shelf area in stores he wants the product to hit and so on. And maybe that's all that really counts in a number of debates surrounding the difficult "is it a RPG or not?" question. See, sometimes the more interesting question isn't "does this neatly fit everyone's understanding of a RPG?" but "could this usefully expand the market of RPGs?". Case in point, Warhammer 3rd.
2. Does the game lend itself well to roleplaying, irrespective of its publisher's claims and intentions with the game?
I have experienced sessions of Runebound and Arkham Horror where people acted out what happened to their characters in all sorts of hilarious and wonderful ways, bringing about ten times more inter-party banter (all conducted in character voice) than some combat heavy D&D 4E sessions I've been in. That doesn't slide these boardgames into the RPG area, or lessen 4E's credits as a RPG. But these experiences color my personal assessment of these games with respect to their "RPG aptitude". And infinitely more so any marketing campaign or forum discussion ever could. Problems only arise when people mount general claims based on personal experiences and, in the process of doing so, knock other people's experience.
Quote from: Maddman;340462Here's my opinion. I'll define what RPGs are, not what they aren't.
- A face to face game played at a table.
You jumped the shark right there, man.
Most of my groups over the years have played at couches, not around a table.
I'll go ahead and tag 4E: It's as close to the line without exiting RPG as I've seen.
Battlestations! (Gorilla Games, 2004) is an RPG with a board. It's sold as a board game, but at it's heart, it's got all the elements I need for RPG:
1) Each player controls a single character, which may be of their own creation.
2) the player has sole control over what the character attempts to do.
3) one participant is deemed to not be a player, but instead a gamemaster
4) the gamemaster picks the scenario
5) the gamemaster informs the players of the results of their characters' actions
6) much of the action occurs as narrative above and beyond the movement of bits on board
7) character success can be measured by means other than success at the scenarios
I think part of the problem is the classification of RPG isn't actually useful, its too broad and you actually need to slice it down further. 4the Edition D&D and Ars Magica may both be Role-playing Games, but their not actually that similar.
The problem is, most games are pretty much surviving in a niche that only they are in, so the game name becomes synonymous with the niche they fill, which becomes an issue when WFRP goes from the anti-d&d-euro-game-heavy-stimulation-low-mechanics niche to the descentalike-low-simulation-high-dice-card niche, because we don't actually have an easy way of expressing it.
Which means people end up reduced to shortening 'its not a anti-d&d-euro-game-heavy-stimulation-low-mechanics rpg' to 'its not an rpg'.
Quote from: flyingmice;340455For me, if people still play roles, and it's a game, then it's an RPG.
But the bolded part is the really contentious bit.
Quote from: flyingmice;340460See In Harm's Way: Aces in Spaces, IHW: Aces And Angels, and IHW: Wild Blue. Air combat is pretty much a board game, pushing markers around on an abstract flow chart. No one has ever said they aren't RPGs. I wouldn't worry about that, MM.
-clash
I agree with your definition Clash, in your previous post.
To back up your example, SA! has been called into question at times because it has defined goals, is easily translated to a board and has decidedly board game elements to the structure but I would still call it an RPG since folks are still assuming a role.
If a majority of people who play that game call it an RPG, then it is an RPG.
So for example if the majority of people who play "Host a Murder Mystery" call it a role playing game, then it is a role playing game. If instead the majority of people playing it call it a party game or a board game, then it is that thing they call it.
Additional complication: basically any RPG can be played as a non-RPG, typically by ditching the roleplaying elements entirely and going pure skirmish boardgame with it – even RPGs that don't have rules for a grid can be bent this way.
I'm sure there are other non-RPG ways to play RPGs but I can't think of them right now.
Quote from: jibbajibba;340466So you an't role play over a Vid link? or to extend it over a Virtual environment or a wiki then its not an RPG?
Quote from: aramis;340494You jumped the shark right there, man.
Most of my groups over the years have played at couches, not around a table.
IMO, no. Virtual tabletops are a different kind of game. Not that they're bad or can't be great fun, but part of what sells me on 'RPG' is the social aspect. Same with pbp or IRC or whatever. You all need to be in the same room, looking each other in the eye.
I'll give you couches though :P
In order to determine when a game stops being an RPG, you first have to determine when a game starts being an RPG, Grasshopper. :hmm:
Quote from: Mistwell;340499If a majority of people who play that game call it an RPG, then it is an RPG.
the majority of people call a xylophone a glockenspiel and vice versa, so I am not sure we can trust their judgement. ;o)
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340496But the bolded part is the really contentious bit.
So? 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.
-clash
Quote from: Maddman;340502IMO, no. Virtual tabletops are a different kind of game. Not that they're bad or can't be great fun, but part of what sells me on 'RPG' is the social aspect. Same with pbp or IRC or whatever. You all need to be in the same room, looking each other in the eye.
I'll give you couches though :P
We play a lot of games using Klooge Werks and Skype. The social aspect is absolutely there, by audio and seeing stuff moved on the screen. I don't know why seeing the person is critical to it being an RPG. Can't blind people play RPGs?
Quote from: Mistwell;340506We play a lot of games using Klooge Werks and Skype. The social aspect is absolutely there, by audio and seeing stuff moved on the screen. I don't know why seeing the person is critical to it being an RPG. Can't blind people play RPGs?
Peoples coming over to my house, or going to their house, is a big part of the fun to me. Just saying that, IMO, it just ain't the same.
Is Clue a RPG?
You play characters with names and personalities (suggested by their pictures rather than a character sheet).
You gather clues and try to solve a crime.
It has a map, dice and "figurines".
You even have a bit of interpersonal conflict in that you're in a race with the others to try to solve the murder first.
What about Talisman, which is overtly modeled on "traditional" RPGs, complete with character "sheets" (cards)?
Quote from: Maddman;340507Peoples coming over to my house, or going to their house, is a big part of the fun to me. Just saying that, IMO, it just ain't the same.
Sure. But "not the same" isn't the same as "not an RPG", right?
To me, going to a local game store and playing a game cold with strangers face to face is not as "social" (or usually as fun) as playing a game using an online device and the telephone (skype) with my old group of RPG friends who have played together for decades. So, I can definitely even imagine where the online game is a superior play experience.
Quote from: Werekoala;340508Is Clue a RPG?
You play characters with names and personalities (suggested by their pictures rather than a character sheet).
You gather clues and try to solve a crime.
It has a map, dice and "figurines".
You even have a bit of interpersonal conflict in that you're in a race with the others to try to solve the murder first.
What about Talisman, which is overtly modeled on "traditional" RPGs, complete with character "sheets" (cards)?
Do the majority of people who play it call it an RPG? IF yes, then yes. IF no, then no.
Quote from: Werekoala;340508Is Clue a RPG?
You play characters with names and personalities (suggested by their pictures rather than a character sheet).
You gather clues and try to solve a crime.
It has a map, dice and "figurines".
You even have a bit of interpersonal conflict in that you're in a race with the others to try to solve the murder first.
What about Talisman, which is overtly modeled on "traditional" RPGs, complete with character "sheets" (cards)?
If 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
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... :D
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. (http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/32/40/0a.pdf) (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. (http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/32/40/0a.pdf) (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.
I would put it this way:
-----
An RPG is a game in which one of more people ("players") take on the role of single entities ("player characters"), and a single other person ("referee/GM/etc") adjudicates the actions of the player characters, and has the power to alter the rules.
Strictly, written rules, dice, paper, etc. are not necessarily, although they are customary.
-----
This definition can be found by tracing the history that lead up to the first published game unanimously agreed to be an RPG, D&D:
The Prussian wargame Kriegspiel, which originated about 1811, had a variant called Free Kriegspiel, in which a referee was allowed to change the rules to accommodate any unusual tactics the players might attempt. However, this game would probably not be considered an RPG.
To my knowledge, the first true RPG was Braunstein, a game based on wargame rules in which each player took control of a single character, and the referee (Major David Wesely) adjudicated their actions. Dave Arneson, coauthor of the original Dungeons & Dragons, was a player in the 4th session of this game (it wasn't really a campaign, just separate confrontations). You can read more about Braunstein here (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/104/braunstein-the-roots-of-roleplaying-games/).
The first published RPG (and thus the archetype for purpose of definition) was titled and subtitled Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. The books don't directly give a definition of the game; they assume that you understand what a wargame is. It presents itself as a variation on wargaming.
Thus, the things needed for something to be an RPG are players with single characters, and a GM who can make up new rules.
Quote from: flyingmice;340539I'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.
Quote from: jeff37923;340546No 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.
I'm not sure if I differ from Clash or not on this, but here's how I would put it: I think people have good reasons for defining something as an RPG or not. Those are usually intelligible and rational, and often quite rigorous and testable. But they're not universal. Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they
really mean is they don't like it."
Quote from: jeff37923;340546No 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.
There might be one and we could certainly invent one. The real question is whether that's more useful than the author's claim. I suggest that it's not, except when one wants to use it to bludgeon someone.
If you had a perfect, objective definition, what would you do with it?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340556Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."
Hmmm. I think if someone responds to a thread like this one and says something to the effect of "an rpg is a game wherein most participants control a singular character in creating a fiction situation in an interactive manner, often with the assistance of at least one player responsible for presenting or adjudicating situations", there's a good chance he's not saying that just because he doesn't like games that don't exactly fit that.
If someone starts an inflammatory thread or makes a blog post* to the effect that some game that obviously really chaps their hide and manufactures a set of "testable criteria" that their own favored games will obviously pass but games they dislike obviously won't, then yeah, it's most likely accurate to say "what they really mean is they don't like it."
* - yes, John Wick, I am looking at you
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340556I'm not sure if I differ from Clash or not on this, but here's how I would put it: I think people have good reasons for defining something as an RPG or not. Those are usually intelligible and rational, and often quite rigorous and testable. But they're not universal. Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."
Why not ? Because that's what it normally comes down to. Saying "X isn't an RPG" is easier than saying "X is a different kind of RPG compared to what I like" - esp since X more often than not plays like any other game. In other words "those good reasons" are normally just preferences and should be discussed as such.
Regards,
David R
First you will have to reconcile
"X is a different kind of RPG compared to what I like"
with
"X more often than not plays like any other game".
Otherwise one is going to have a lot of trouble getting one's point across.
Also, there are lots of RPGs I don't like, or at least have zero interest in, but I don't think of them as "not RPGs". So the two statements, "dislike" and "not an RPG", aren't congruent. QED.
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;340555To my knowledge, the first true RPG was Braunstein, a game based on wargame rules in which each player took control of a single character, and the referee (Major David Wesely) adjudicated their actions. Dave Arneson, coauthor of the original Dungeons & Dragons, was a player in the 4th session of this game (it wasn't really a campaign, just separate confrontations). You can read more about Braunstein here (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/104/braunstein-the-roots-of-roleplaying-games/).
The first published RPG (and thus the archetype for purpose of definition) was titled and subtitled Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. The books don't directly give a definition of the game; they assume that you understand what a wargame is. It presents itself as a variation on wargaming.
Thus, the things needed for something to be an RPG are players with single characters, and a GM who can make up new rules.
HR, you might find this interesting: http://ewilen.livejournal.com/tag/braunstein
Through Elliot Wilen's link, I found a pertinent quote from Wesely:
QuoteThe idea of having an all-powerful Referee who would invent the scenario for the game (battle) of the evening, provide for hidden movement and deal with anything the players decided thatthey wanted to do was not taken from Kriegspeil but was mostly inspired by 'Strategos, The American Game of War', a training manual for US army wargames Lt. Charles Adiel Lewis Totten, USMA 1871, publshed by Doubleday in 1880.
This changes the RPG lineage a bit, I suppose.
Also this:
QuoteBy the way, I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared, as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing, already existed: The term was already being used for (1) a tool used to train actors for improvisation (an example being the Cheese Shop Game since imortalized by Monty Python) and (2) a tool used for group therapy and psychiatric analysis ("Pretend you are an animal. What kind of an animal do you want to be? How does your aniimal feel about Janet?") And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty. I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck with "RPG".
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340556I'm not sure if I differ from Clash or not on this, but here's how I would put it: I think people have good reasons for defining something as an RPG or not. Those are usually intelligible and rational, and often quite rigorous and testable. But they're not universal. Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."
That's precisely my point, Eliot. People differ, and exactly where a line gets drawn depends on the person. Even if you frame it beautifully with words, the meaning of those words will differ slightly from person to person, and that sought-for precision slips away. Words are not numbers, and treating them as numbers is putting a square peg in a round hole. We define words by other words, and those words by still more. Words evoke a concept, and those concepts will differ. Is "bread" warm, homemade, and fresh from the over, or cold, spongiform, and fresh from the plastic wrapper? Bagette or sourdough? Buttered or without? These inflections color words, and while you and I could both look at a slice and both say "That's bread!", we may look at different slice and one will say "Bread!" while the other shouts "Cake!", because there are things on the borderland of bread and cake, which partake somewhat of both, and the difference is in our minds, not in the slice.
-clash
Actually no reconciliation is needed. IME people recognize descriptions of gaming activity even though they may have no interest in the specific game itself. It may deviate from the way how "they do things" but it does conform to what they consider "gaming" in general.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340564Also, there are lots of RPGs I don't like, or at least have zero interest in, but I don't think of them as "not RPGs". So the two statements, "dislike" and "not an RPG", aren't congruent. QED.
Sure when it comes to you. When it comes to the rhetoric of others - not QED. BTW what games are not RPGs in your opinion?
Edit : Brother, we have been over this before. I remember Sett's thread about Forger & Thematics or something like that. If I recall I mostly agreed with you.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Monster Manuel;340451When does a game stop being an RPG for you?
When it doesn't say so on the cover.
Quote from: Imp;340501Additional complication: basically any RPG can be played as a non-RPG, typically by ditching the roleplaying elements entirely and going pure skirmish boardgame with it (...).
I'm sure there are other non-RPG ways to play RPGs but I can't think of them right now.
Trade simulation game via Traveller.
One person, one book, lots of tables and dice.
When you put it on the shelf as part of a collection and don't play it.
It stops being an RPG when:
a. It stops being centrally about players playing a Role. For example, if the idea of "players making a story" is more important than the individual roles they're playing.
b. It stops being about the GM emulating the world. So if players have the power to meta-affect the world outside of their own character's actions. Likewise if the sense of emulation is placed secondary to other concerns (ie. "story").
c. It stops being a game. If its meant to be a therapy exercise or an educational tool or a business seminar aid, then its not an RPG in our sense of the word. Likewise if it is presented as avant-garde "Art" or some kind of "mental exercise" which has no actual game value, ie. "misery tourism".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;340633It stops being an RPG when:
Quote from: RPGPundit;340633a. It stops being centrally about players playing a Role. For example, if the idea of "players making a story" is more important than the individual roles they're playing.
I think I probably agree with that actually.
Quote from: RPGPundit;340633b. It stops being about the GM emulating the world. So if players have the power to meta-affect the world outside of their own character's actions. Likewise if the sense of emulation is placed secondary to other concerns (ie. "story").
Adventure! and Buffy the Vampire Slayer aren't rpgs? Really? I think this one's a bit absolute, some meta-mechanics don't stop it being an rpg, it's when they go from being a supplement to the general rules to being the general rules that possibly a line is crossed.
Quote from: RPGPundit;340633c. It stops being a game. If its meant to be a therapy exercise or an educational tool or a business seminar aid, then its not an RPG in our sense of the word. Likewise if it is presented as avant-garde "Art" or some kind of "mental exercise" which has no actual game value, ie. "misery tourism".
RPGPundit
Obviously, though I'm not sure Grey Ranks is meant as a therapy session, educational tool or business aid nor that it's presented as "art" or a "mental exercise".
We all had names though, that is meant as an educational tool, and so your test would apply.
My personal lines in the sand agree with Balbinus', Pundit. I think your first and third points are telling and well put, but your second point is not. In my private definition, the GM is custom, not an integral part of the concept. It's a custom I like, but a custom nonetheless.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;340641My personal lines in the sand agree with Balbinus', Pundit. I think your first and third points are telling and well put, but your second point is not. In my private definition, the GM is custom, not an integral part of the concept. It's a custom I like, but a custom nonetheless.
-clash
I'm not sure - I think that RPGPundit is onto something.
Speaking personally, while I enjoy playing a number of Indie RPGs, I find that they push very different buttons for me compared to traditional rpgs. In particular they transfer ownership of the game from the GM to the group as a whole, and because of this the environment of the game is usually 'created as you go along' by the group during play. This is a very different experience to either playing in, or especially GMing a traditional rpg, where so much of the experience is based around the GM creating and owning the environment where the game is played,
and doing this work in advance of play.
Quote from: Glazer;340647I'm not sure - I think that RPGPundit is onto something.
Speaking personally, while I enjoy playing a number of Indie RPGs, I find that they push very different buttons for me compared to traditional rpgs. In particular they transfer ownership of the game from the GM to the group as a whole, and because of this the environment of the game is usually 'created as you go along' by the group during play. This is a very different experience to either playing in, or especially GMing a traditional rpg, where so much of the experience is based around the GM creating and owning the environment where the game is played, and doing this work in advance of play.
I don't disagree with his tack, but he goes too far. His rule b does exclude both Adventure! and Buffy, and whether you like them or not they're both actually fairly traditional rpgs.
What's the problem with GM improv?
It seems like you could parse this out further, in to "role playing game" s. "role playing collaborative storytelling experience."
My example in question is with my wife, who plays on a role playing server on WoW. She and her guild regularly host elaborate tales online in WoW that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual game they are playing (outside of common lore) but involve tales of derring do, interpersonal conflict and adventure. Once in a blue moon they will target an "in game" event or feature as something to be acquired/destroyed/visited in relation to their grand internal plot. It's quite fascinating, as it depends entirely on the consensus of the guild as a whole, and has no rules of moderation outside of the perpetrator of the plot. I am also mystified as to how they resolve "he said vs. she said" situations, though it does seem to boild down to a lot of private negotiating and jockeying for story rights. Is it role playing? Absolutely. Is it an RPG? I am powerless to say.
One could strip this example away to the case of a wargame in which there is no cause or need for role playing, but everyone sits around pretending to be generals of their respective armies, I imagine. Or if everyone plays a game like Hero Quest or Talisman "in character" the whole time. In the end, it leads me to think that the defining point of an "RPG" would be if the "G" in that component lends itself to support for the role playing experience. At that point, of course, one has the problem of a general breakdown on agreeing what sorts of rules lend such support.
For example, I feel that most RPGs as we think of such usually include elements that help you define who and what your character is, even if the focus is combat heavy (like all iterations of D&D) or capable of supporting conflict-free engagements (such as GURPS, say). But I tend to balk at games that introduce collaborative story telling components, or which loosen the definition of who controls what. Atlas produced a faerie tale card game, for example, in which drawing cards led to an elaborate shared tale among the players. It was definitely a creative exercise, but most definitely not a role playing experience.
Quote from: Glazer;340647I'm not sure - I think that RPGPundit is onto something.
Speaking personally, while I enjoy playing a number of Indie RPGs, I find that they push very different buttons for me compared to traditional rpgs. In particular they transfer ownership of the game from the GM to the group as a whole, and because of this the environment of the game is usually 'created as you go along' by the group during play. This is a very different experience to either playing in, or especially GMing a traditional rpg, where so much of the experience is based around the GM creating and owning the environment where the game is played, and doing this work in advance of play.
My point is that you can play a role in a totally GMless game. Where playing your role is a minor bit compared to your world authoring duties, then RPG is perhaps a misnomer, but if the world-authoring bit is minor, then to me it's still an RPG. There are also GM-emulators - which I have not used - which generate world-stuff randomly. Would - say - D&D 3.0 played using a GM emulator be a non-RPG? I think his rule 1 covers these situations perfectly, and there is no need of 2. IMO, if the players spend more of their time creating story and world-stuff than they do playing their roles, then it has crossed the line.
-clash
Well, I disagree with all three of Pundit's points. About the only game I have seen around here which was not an rpg was We All Had Names, which was obviously some sort of teaching/acting tool. Story creation, player narrative control, dark subject matter (with does not negate player agency) are all rpgs IMO. To Glazer's point about Forge games "pushing different buttons" - this has been my experience as well, but this does not mean they are not rpgs. Diceless, GMless etc are just variations of the same theme.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;340660Well, I disagree with all three of Pundit's points. About the only game I have seen around here which was not an rpg was We All Had Names, which was obviously some sort of teaching/acting tool. Story creation, player narrative control, dark subject matter (with does not negate player agency) are all rpgs IMO. To Glazer's point about Forge games "pushing different buttons" - this has been my experience as well, but this does not mean they are not rpgs. Diceless, GMless etc are just variations of the same theme.
Regards,
David R
I suspect you're correct, but I guess it raises the issue of different types or classifications of RPG: narrativist collaborative games, traditional referee-centered games, and collective tale-telling with a shared character games, for example could all be their own specialized subgenres of RPGs in general. I think many people confuse the process for the nature...so if the method by which one role plays does not conform to how a person was taught such, it can be hard to recognize it as just another iteration of the same general form. Also, people might confuse preference for type....I know I've done that, although games like Burning Wheel indisputably opened up my eyes to the idea of alternative methods for delivering the role playing experience that defy traditional conventions. I'm an old school gamer at heart, and so I prefer the conventional "1 GM and a bunch of players" style, but indie games have been coloring outside of that box for a while now.
Quote from: flyingmice;340657My point is that you can play a role in a totally GMless game. Where playing your role is a minor bit compared to your world authoring duties, then RPG is perhaps a misnomer, but if the world-authoring bit is minor, then to me it's still an RPG. There are also GM-emulators - which I have not used - which generate world-stuff randomly. Would - say - D&D 3.0 played using a GM emulator be a non-RPG? I think his rule 1 covers these situations perfectly, and there is no need of 2. IMO, if the players spend more of their time creating story and world-stuff than they do playing their roles, then it has crossed the line.
-clash
To draw from PC games, a computer RPG is just a roleplaying game with a GM emulator built around it. I mean, I love games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect....I think they definitely fit the bill as role playing games, by engaging in a process of player immersion and world/story simulation.
What if you're playing a "Role Playing Game" such as D&D (any edition) and during the entire session, nobody says anything that is "in character", but simply makes their moves, attack roles, rolls to find traps, decipher scripts, etc. (which is pretty much how our group plays D&D unless the DM goes out of their way to provoke character interaction). Is that "role playing"?
Quote from: David R;340660Well, I disagree with all three of Pundit's points. About the only game I have seen around here which was not an rpg was We All Had Names, which was obviously some sort of teaching/acting tool. Story creation, player narrative control, dark subject matter (with does not negate player agency) are all rpgs IMO. To Glazer's point about Forge games "pushing different buttons" - this has been my experience as well, but this does not mean they are not rpgs. Diceless, GMless etc are just variations of the same theme.
I don't know. I have pretty Catholic tastes where it comes to gaming: rpgs, miniature games, board games, card games, I play them all. Perhaps because of this I tend to put the games into different groups, depending on the buttons they push for me. So, for example, 4e didn't work all that well for me, as it felt like it was pushing my miniature gaming buttons, and that wasn't what I wanted from D&D.
What I've found interesting about the Indie RPGs that I've played is that they didn't seem to be pushing any of the sets of buttons I already had. They pushed a new set of buttons, and I ended up mentally putting them into their own, new, category.
So, for me, if I put the Indie games I play in the same category as the 'rpgs' I've play, then I'd also need to lump them in with all of the card games, board games and miniature games I play too. And that just doesn't seem right.
Quote from: Halfjack;340557If you had a perfect, objective definition, what would you do with it?
Change the arguement from "Is this or is this not a RPG?" to "What kind of RPG is this?", which I think is far more interesting.
The sad truth of this is, under Pundit's definition, Amber Diceless is not an RPG. Oh, he denies this, but his denials really come down to "because I said so" more than anything else.
Amber Diceless is as much an RPG as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But, he likes one of those, and not the other, so works hard to pretend one is totally different from the other when at essence they are the same.
Quote from: Balbinus;340648I don't disagree with his tack, but he goes too far. His rule b does exclude both Adventure! and Buffy...
Are you sure? I don't see how it does, but I may just be being dense :)
Quote from: Glazer;340683Are you sure? I don't see how it does, but I may just be being dense :)
Well, I'm rarely sure about anything, but both include dramatic editing which allows the player to exert direct authorial control over facts within the game world, which I think b prohibits.
Werekoala, I don't know, but if the definition excludes D&D then whatever it is the definition's wrong.
Quote from: Werekoala;340665What if you're playing a "Role Playing Game" such as D&D (any edition) and during the entire session, nobody says anything that is "in character", but simply makes their moves, attack roles, rolls to find traps, decipher scripts, etc. (which is pretty much how our group plays D&D unless the DM goes out of their way to provoke character interaction). Is that "role playing"?
Wrong dichotomy, still interesting. Because the crucial information is missing: do you ONLY engage in the rules, as a close redaing would imply?
I would assume that what you actually do is the ESSENCE of roleplaying:
"How far can Bob the Fighter see?"
"60 ft"
"Okay, so what does the wall look like?"
"Marble, sprinkled with residue of some gooey substance."
"Does Bob what it could be?"
"No."
"Okay, then he gets his grappling hook and..."
Quote from: Balbinus;340693Well, I'm rarely sure about anything, but both include dramatic editing which allows the player to exert direct authorial control over facts within the game world, which I think b prohibits.
As does my Cold Space series of games, and my In Harm's Way series, as LUCK can be used as short term dramatic editing, though character-based rather than player-based. Both of these series of games Pundit has not only accepted as RPGs, but liked. That's why I contend that his point 2 is inherently flawed.
-clash
Quote from: Settembrini;340694Wrong dichotomy, still interesting. Because the crucial information is missing: do you ONLY engage in the rules, as a close redaing would imply?
I would assume that what you actually do is the ESSENCE of roleplaying:
"How far can Bob the Fighter see?"
"60 ft"
"Okay, so what does the wall look like?"
"Marble, sprinkled with residue of some gooey substance."
"Does Bob what it could be?"
"No."
"Okay, then he gets his grappling hook and..."
Hm. Well, we typically say "I'll do ____" instead of "He does ____", so I guess in the most basic of ways, we're roleplaying since we refer to our characters in first-person. Then again, there's no immersion there, it's just a convention of speech, I think.
Role Playing, to me, would seem to imply some effort to "think outside yourself", or to go against your own personality. Some of our players do that, others are just playing themselves in a funny outfit.
I try to have some personality other than my own play at least some part of my characters. Most recent example - a teenager in a fantasy GURPS game with a crippled leg from an accident involving falling out of a tall tree, who developed a fear of heights as a result. As a consequence, he was made fun of and shunned by many of his peers, and developed a bit of a vindictive streak. Not one bit of that was required to play the game, but that's why I consider what I did more like "role playing" than the guy who always makes a gun-bunny character because he personally knows all about guns.
Quote from: Settembrini;340694Wrong dichotomy, still interesting. Because the crucial information is missing: do you ONLY engage in the rules, as a close redaing would imply?
I would assume that what you actually do is the ESSENCE of roleplaying:
"How far can Bob the Fighter see?"
"60 ft"
"Okay, so what does the wall look like?"
"Marble, sprinkled with residue of some gooey substance."
"Does Bob what it could be?"
"No."
"Okay, then he gets his grappling hook and..."
I agree. This is roleplaying. You are playing the role of Bob the Fighter. Many people play in third person.
-clash
Quote from: Werekoala;340665...during the entire session, nobody says anything that is "in character", but simply makes their moves, attack roles, rolls to find traps, decipher scripts, etc.
[...snip...]
Is that "role playing"?
Yes. It's playing a role descriptively, but not dramatically. And there's a whole other issue for another thread.
!i!
It seems probable that confusion of the definition of an RPG comes from the misnaming of the hobby. Consider Wesely's statement, as posted previously:
Quote...I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared, as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing, already existed: ...(1) a tool used to train actors for improvisation... and (2) a tool used for group therapy and psychiatric analysis... And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty. I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck with "RPG".
The term "role-playing" is, as he says, mired in theatric connotations, even though RPGs are not the descendants of theater.
Quote from: Mistwell;340677The sad truth of this is, under Pundit's definition, Amber Diceless is not an RPG. Oh, he denies this, but his denials really come down to "because I said so" more than anything else.
Amber Diceless is as much an RPG as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But, he likes one of those, and not the other, so works hard to pretend one is totally different from the other when at essence they are the same.
You bitches love to claim this, but you can never back it up. Show your work, motherfucker.
Amber lets players play their roles, and that's central.
It gives absolute authority to the GM.
And it is first and foremost a game, and not some other kind of exercise.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Glazer;340666I don’t know. I have pretty Catholic tastes where it comes to gaming: rpgs, miniature games, board games, card games, I play them all. Perhaps because of this I tend to put the games into different groups, depending on the buttons they push for me. So, for example, 4e didn’t work all that well for me, as it felt like it was pushing my miniature gaming buttons, and that wasn’t what I wanted from D&D.
What I’ve found interesting about the Indie RPGs that I’ve played is that they didn’t seem to be pushing any of the sets of buttons I already had. They pushed a new set of buttons, and I ended up mentally putting them into their own, new, category.
So, for me, if I put the Indie games I play in the same category as the ‘rpgs’ I’ve play, then I’d also need to lump them in with all of the card games, board games and miniature games I play too. And that just doesn't seem right.
Yeah, that's why I say when it comes to excluding certain games it's all a matter of preference. Your comment about
4E is esp telling. I know a number of long time gamers who would disagree with you, long time gamers who use minis extensively in their role playing sessions.
Talking about owning the game, shared narrative control etc, is interesting though. I'm currently running
OtE with a trad GM/Player dynamic. Before this I ran a campaign with shared narrative control with my players using the same system.
I think the problem has always been that both the Forgers who constantly seek to break new ground and the anti Forgers who seek to maintain a pure version of the hobby are ignorant of the fact that this social activity has always sustained a diverse range of uncodified play styles.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: RPGPundit;340724You bitches love to claim this, but you can never back it up. Show your work, motherfucker.
Amber lets players play their roles, and that's central.
It gives absolute authority to the GM.
And it is first and foremost a game, and not some other kind of exercise.
RPGPundit
Amber Diceless shares narrative control directly with the players (at least, it does the way the rules are written), by giving the players significant setting control (which is a crucial part of the narrative). Your justifications for this are just excuses. The truth is, it's OK to share narrative control in Amber Diceless because you like the game, and it is not OK to do it in a game like Buffy because you do not like the game.
And the fact that so many people come to this same exact conclusion completely independently of each others opinions should tell you something.
It's OK that you like a game where the rules result in people sharing narrative control with the players. Nobody is going to harsh on you for it, or if they do you can handle the harshness. But this pussy thing you do of denying the rules share narrative control in Amber Diceless just reduces your credibility here and elsewhere. It makes you look like a hypocritical wanker.
Quote from: Mistwell;340759Amber Diceless shares narrative control directly with the players (at least, it does the way the rules are written), by giving the players significant setting control (which is a crucial part of the narrative). Your justifications for this are just excuses. The truth is, it's OK to share narrative control in Amber Diceless because you like the game, and it is not OK to do it in a game like Buffy because you do not like the game.
Spoken like someone who's clearly never played the game. Players have ZERO narrative control. To suggest that the power of
being able to travel to places gives you narrative control is just retarded.
QuoteAnd the fact that so many people come to this same exact conclusion completely independently of each others opinions should tell you something.
Yes. It proves that there are a lot of desperate Forgers out there.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Mistwell;340759It makes you look like a hypocritical wanker.
Says the douchebag who used to go to Circvs Maximvs to bitch about this website. There isn't a rolleyes smiley big enough...
Quote from: RPGPundit;340764Spoken like someone who's clearly never played the game. Players have ZERO narrative control. To suggest that the power of being able to travel to places gives you narrative control is just retarded.
The fact that in Amber (as portrayed in both the novels and the game) there are Shadows out there where literally anything your character could hope to find exist, and that your character is able to travel to them...that draws an awfully fine line between your assertion that players have "ZERO" narrative control and Mistwell's that they do. If you, as a player, can imagine an appropriate Shadow, your character damned well ought to be capable of traveling to it. Complications in the process are the domain of the GM.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;340779The fact that in Amber (as portrayed in both the novels and the game) there are Shadows out there where literally anything your character could hope to find exist, and that your character is able to travel to them...that draws an awfully fine line between your assertion that players have "ZERO" narrative control and Mistwell's that they do. If you, as a player, can imagine an appropriate Shadow, your character damned well ought to be capable of traveling to it. Complications in the process are the domain of the GM.
!i!
So the characters have the control to shape the setting that their powers within the setting grant them, but the players have no power to shape the narrative beyond the powers their characters actually possess?
I think Pundy's right I'm afraid, that to me isn't player level sharing of authorial rights.
Quote from: David R;340747Your comment about 4E is esp telling. I know a number of long time gamers who would disagree with you, long time gamers who use minis extensively in their role playing sessions.
For clarity, I use miniatures in all of my role-playing sessions too. However, I find there's a difference between playing an rpg and a tabletop wargame.
Hmmm, thinking about this, I think it's interesting that the term rpg came into use because D&D clearly
wasn't a traditional tabletop wargame, even though it grew out of that hobby. A new term was needed to cover this new style of game play, and rpg was the term used. I think for quite a few of us there is a similar level of difference between 'story-driven, shared narrative' games and traditional rpgs, though I fully accept that this is purely subjective.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;340779The fact that in Amber (as portrayed in both the novels and the game) there are Shadows out there where literally anything your character could hope to find exist, and that your character is able to travel to them...that draws an awfully fine line between your assertion that players have "ZERO" narrative control and Mistwell's that they do. If you, as a player, can imagine an appropriate Shadow, your character damned well ought to be capable of traveling to it. Complications in the process are the domain of the GM.
!i!
Again, this only seems really meaningful to someone who doesn't play Amber. So what?
Before, I compared this power to being able to travel.
In fact, that's an exaggeration.
What this power is really like is like having a holodeck. It isn't even real. The PC can go out and find infinite SHADOWS where he can fulfill his wettest of wet dreams, yes, but it DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. And all the places that do mean something (Amber, the Courts of Chaos, Ygg, etc) are places where their powers can't actually do any manipulating. That's a big part of why they matter.
And again, the Player can't actually alter the narrative, any more than giving a Sci-fi RPG character a spaceship (or a virtual spaceship) "alters the narrative".
I mean seriously, fuckers, you need to start working harder than this if you want to be a challenge.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Glazer;340828Hmmm, thinking about this, I think it's interesting that the term rpg came into use because D&D clearly wasn't a traditional tabletop wargame, even though it grew out of that hobby. A new term was needed to cover this new style of game play, and rpg was the term used. I think for quite a few of us there is a similar level of difference between 'story-driven, shared narrative' games and traditional rpgs, though I fully accept that this is purely subjective.
Well I'm still waiting for the day when the Forge or whoever actually comes up with something that clearly isn't an RPG. Story driven and shared narrative although not exactly traditional or should I say historical, isn't quite that far of the reservation. Again, strictly IMO.
Regards,
David R
I let my Amber players have a lot more control of the set up of the narative. I let them build the castle and the kingdom and I allow them to populate it.
Once these things are set they don't get any narative control well not as I define it though Pundy may disagree as I allow 'I pick up a wine bottle from the table to use as a weapon,' and he would insist on 'Is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a weapon?'.
I think arguing one is roleplaying and one is some sort of shared narative exercise is a stupid idea.
It is amusing though as Pundy also hates points buy and Amber is points buy, sure its an auction and you have ranks but its points buy.
But then this is Amber, the epitome of games the purest of pastimes.
So I can only deduce it's a ying yang thing. For Pundy to be so anti-narativism, point buy and shared control he has to accept and love Amber. I suspect that Ron Edwards probably has a copy of FtA he breaks out for some mad hack and slash goodness every couple of weeks.
Quote from: RPGPundit;340764Yes. It proves that there are a lot of desperate Forgers out there.
RPGPundit
Yeah dude, anyone who disagrees with your view of narrative control in Amber Diceless must be a Forger. That makes so much sense. By the way, is your tinfoil hat on snug today?
Quote from: RPGPundit;340830Again, this only seems really meaningful to someone who doesn't play Amber. So what?
Before, I compared this power to being able to travel.
In fact, that's an exaggeration.
What this power is really like is like having a holodeck. It isn't even real. The PC can go out and find infinite SHADOWS where he can fulfill his wettest of wet dreams, yes, but it DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. And all the places that do mean something (Amber, the Courts of Chaos, Ygg, etc) are places where their powers can't actually do any manipulating. That's a big part of why they matter.
And again, the Player can't actually alter the narrative, any more than giving a Sci-fi RPG character a spaceship (or a virtual spaceship) "alters the narrative".
I mean seriously, fuckers, you need to start working harder than this if you want to be a challenge.
RPGPundit
The fact that you are not grokking the challenge you are trying to respond to doesn't help your case any. When you actually comprehend what we're saying (lots and lots of people who have read your thoughts on this topic), then you might be in a position to tell others to work harder on challenging you. When one person fails to get the message across to you, then it's probably that persons fault. But when dozens, over many years, say essentially the same thing and you still don't get it and make responses like you just did which demonstrate you REALLY don't get it? Yah, then it's on you for not being willing to think.
Quote from: jibbajibba;340863I let my Amber players have a lot more control of the set up of the narative. I let them build the castle and the kingdom and I allow them to populate it.
Which, in my opinion, is just what the rules encourage.
QuoteOnce these things are set they don't get any narative control well not as I define it though Pundy may disagree as I allow 'I pick up a wine bottle from the table to use as a weapon,' and he would insist on 'Is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a weapon?'.
I think arguing one is roleplaying and one is some sort of shared narative exercise is a stupid idea.
I agree
QuoteIt is amusing though as Pundy also hates points buy and Amber is points buy, sure its an auction and you have ranks but its points buy.
It's another one of those "Pundit likes it, therefore there must be an excuse as to why it is OK this time but not other times for those poopy games I hate".
QuoteSo I can only deduce it's a ying yang thing. For Pundy to be so anti-narativism, point buy and shared control he has to accept and love Amber. I suspect that Ron Edwards probably has a copy of FtA he breaks out for some mad hack and slash goodness every couple of weeks.
LOL
Quote from: Balbinus;340807I think Pundy's right I'm afraid, that to me isn't player level sharing of authorial rights.
As I suggested above, it stretches the dividing line rather thin. Perhaps more amusingly, though, the power to traverse infinite Shadows pretty well demands the "Yes, but..." response from the GM, that slippery slope into pseudo-narrativism that Pundy has decried from
Nobilis and other games.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;340899As I suggested above, it stretches the dividing line rather thin. Perhaps more amusingly, though, the power to traverse infinite Shadows pretty well demands the "Yes, but..." response from the GM, that slippery slope into pseudo-narrativism that Pundy has decried from Nobilis and other games.
!i!
Well, Pundy is trying to craft the definition to fit where he wants it to go.
I found this interesting quote related to this topic on the Gygax Games front page:
"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you're involved in, whether it's a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."
-E. Gary Gygax
Quote from: Mistwell;340897The fact that you are not grokking the challenge...
Be careful with that word. It doesn't simply mean "understand". Rather, it means, as it was stated in the book:
Quote...to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthly assumptions) as color means to a blind man.
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;340953Be careful with that word. It doesn't simply mean "understand". Rather, it means, as it was stated in the book:
True.
Pundit is the central character in a mythical anti-forge movement he envisions existing, which includes as a central principal "players do not get narrative control over the game", among other central principals.
Pundit is also one of the primary characters in the continuation of the Amber Diecless RPG fanbase. Many, if not most, Amber Diceless participants believe that Amber Diceless gives players a degree of narrative control over the game.
This is a conflict which, if Pundit is going to remain a central/primary character in the "movements" I have described, he will have to some day resolve. And, to do that, I contend he needs to more than just understand the issue, but he really needs to grok it.
Others might be able to get away with just understanding and responding to it (often flippantly). But if you are THE guy on the crossroads, it's going to come down to you formulating the position that likely eventually ends the debate, by either synthesizing the positions or changing a position or something else. And to do that, he should really grok the issue.
And until he does grok it, from what I have seen so far his answers on this issue will remain unsatisfactory and frankly a bit smug and dismissive. Much like the answers of the Forgers he loathes.
Quote from: RPGPundit;340830What this power is really like is like having a holodeck. It isn't even real. The PC can go out and find infinite SHADOWS where he can fulfill his wettest of wet dreams, yes, but it DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. And all the places that do mean something (Amber, the Courts of Chaos, Ygg, etc) are places where their powers can't actually do any manipulating. That's a big part of why they matter.
It's been a while since I read the Amber books, but I do remember the Shadows being somewhat more significant than that. Incidents which particularly stand out include the protagonist starting the story having been robbed of his memories and trapped in a Shadow by another Amberite, and a bit later the protagonist travelling the Shadows to find a way to make firearms which will function in Amber. They're places where you can hide things that matter, and where you can actually acquire things that matter to boot. I wouldn't call that insignificant by a long way.
Not that I agree that Amber shares authorial control with the players - the powers granted to go to Shadows are the IC powers that the characters possess, not OOC powers that are invested in the players - but I don't think you can completely dismiss the Shadows.
Quote from: Warthur;340983Not that I agree that Amber shares authorial control with the players - the powers granted to go to Shadows are the IC powers that the characters possess, not OOC powers that are invested in the players - but I don't think you can completely dismiss the Shadows.
This is a ludicrous excuse. Your discussing the means, not the end, of obtaining narrative control.
Imagine a game that said the characters specifically can create any NPC with their specifically dictated looks and personality and knowledge, and any location of anything that does anything they want it to, and any object of any power whatsoever, and they are the only ones that could do this in that universe, and nothing can interfere with this "power".
Note, I am not in any way saying that IS Amber Diceless, I am just asking you to imagine it.
Now how is that not a degree of narrative control, just because the means of obtaining that control is a character "power"?
Calling it a character power or a player power is essentially meaningless if the end result is the players can exercise control over the narrative. And Amber absolutely gives players a degree of narrative control, even though the mechanism is a "power". The mechanism is not as important as the result, when determining narrative control.
Quote from: Mistwell;341006Now how is that not a degree of narrative control, just because the means of obtaining that control is a character "power"?
Calling it a character power or a player power is essentially meaningless if the end result is the players can exercise control over the narrative. And Amber absolutely gives players a degree of narrative control, even though the mechanism is a "power". The mechanism is not as important as the result, when determining narrative control.
By this line of reasoning, all character abilities, down to blacksmithing, are "narrative control". The mechanism
is the important thing: Did your character construct a new set of armor, or did you the player declare the armor's existence?
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;341011By this line of reasoning, all character abilities, down to blacksmithing, are "narrative control". The mechanism is the important thing: Did your character construct a new set of armor, or did you the player declare the armor's existence?
In Amber, it's both. You cannot tell the difference. If the player wants armor for his character, the player can declare the armor into existence, controlling that portion of the narrative, and the best the GM can do is "yes, but.." or houserule a "your powers don't work here" into the game, which are both just GM fiats that serves to further highlight the control the players have over the narrative.
It's obvious to anyone who has no dog in the fight that the players have a much larger degree of control over the narrative in Amber than they do in most games.
I have to speak up for Pundy here.
His dividing line is very clear. The Amberites have powers to affect the universe they can use these powers (if the PC has them) to make certain changes. The players in and of themselves have no such rights.
At the extreme end of this an Amberite with Pattern can create a world, populate it with denizens and tailor its geography, but if someone attacks him when he sleeps and manages to land a fatal blow he can not ask for a do over.
Now my concern is at two points. I like the PCs, who are ancient beings, to feel like they inhabit the world. To achieve this I allow them to share in the building of it. This gives them narative control to a degree. If they want there to be a noble house who were banished 500 years ago for an act of treason then sure no problem.
My second issue is at the micro level. In all my games I encourage players to take decisions. So for me a player saying 'I head to a bar where I know some shifty characters and ask old Two-fingers what he knows about activities on the docks.' Is fine but to Pundy this crosses the narative control line. He would expect use of some character based skill and then for the GM to provide the name of the contact. I am comfortable enough to short circuit this process and allow the player to control it. I will keep in mind their skills and if we are in a game where information gathering or criminal-subculture are named skills I will probably ask for a skill check but I don't feel the need to be totally in control of the small stuff.
Now to me the assertion that the direct result of me being comfortable with my own ability to run a game with no need to sweat the edges is that I am no longer playing an RPG is ludicrous.
I have no defintion of an RPG by the way but if I did it might well include freedom of action. So Clue is not an RPG because I am not allowed to pursue Col Mustard to the Ballroom and club him to death with a candle-stick. Games where I have hero-points like James Bond or Beanies in Savage Worlds are still RPGs because these are just mechanics of the game part.
If a games publishers identify it as a roleplaying game, then that in and of itself is good enough for me.
There are, of course, some games that I like better than others, but that doesn't, in essence, make them any more or less a roleplaying game. Attempting to objectively define what makes something a "roleplaying game" is a largely prententious and masturbatory effort to codify one's subjective value judgments.
Quote from: estar;340459So defining an exact break point is an exercise in futility. The extremes are easily seen as different forms of gaming but the middle is a muddled mess subject to personal preference.
This is one of my main problems with these kind of discussions. So what? Why the need to say "this is an type A RPG and this is a type B one?" It's useless.
Quote from: Technomancer;340469Roleplaying: Players assume the role of characters in a story/adventure/scenario (whatever you want to call it) and decide how those characters act and react to situations encountered in the course of play. A GM may or may not be present as well.
Game: There are rules to determine the success and failure of the actions of the player characters.
This definition is quite fitting, IMO.
Quote from: Balbinus;340627When you put it on the shelf as part of a collection and don't play it.
Indeed :D
Quote from: RPGPundit;340633It stops being an RPG when:
b. It stops being about the GM emulating the world. So if players have the power to meta-affect the world outside of their own character's actions. Likewise if the sense of emulation is placed secondary to other concerns (ie. "story").
As others have said, this point is not true for me. The GM is something customary, but does not define the experience. As Clash said, it's a custom I like, but a custom nonetheless.
Quote from: jeff37923;340669Change the arguement from "Is this or is this not a RPG?" to "What kind of RPG is this?", which I think is far more interesting.
I totally agree with you on this.
Quote from: Mistwell;340897The fact that you are not grokking the challenge you are trying to respond to doesn't help your case any. When you actually comprehend what we're saying (lots and lots of people who have read your thoughts on this topic), then you might be in a position to tell others to work harder on challenging you. When one person fails to get the message across to you, then it's probably that persons fault. But when dozens, over many years, say essentially the same thing and you still don't get it and make responses like you just did which demonstrate you REALLY don't get it? Yah, then it's on you for not being willing to think.
Nope, try again. Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it the truth.
You've yet to explain how Amber gives players setting-control outside of their abilities. Inside doesn't count, otherwise, by that standard, a wizard casting phantasmal force or teleport has "setting control", or a fighter swinging his sword, for that matter.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jibbajibba;340863I let my Amber players have a lot more control of the set up of the narative. I let them build the castle and the kingdom and I allow them to populate it.
Once these things are set they don't get any narative control well not as I define it though Pundy may disagree as I allow 'I pick up a wine bottle from the table to use as a weapon,' and he would insist on 'Is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a weapon?'.
Yup; or, if the PC has pattern, he could say "I try to use pattern to alter probability so that there's a wine bottle lying under the table"; or if he has Logrus he could say "I extend a logrus tendril to try to rapidly find a wine bottle", or if he has conjuration he could say "I try to conjure up a wine bottle".
What he can't say is "I, the player, decide that there's a wine bottle there JUST BECAUSE".
QuoteIt is amusing though as Pundy also hates points buy and Amber is points buy, sure its an auction and you have ranks but its points buy.
You could say its a kind of point-buy, but the nature of the auction adds an element of the unpredictable to a player's character creation process, in that manner removing my number one issue with point-buy games.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Ian Absentia;340899As I suggested above, it stretches the dividing line rather thin. Perhaps more amusingly, though, the power to traverse infinite Shadows pretty well demands the "Yes, but..." response from the GM, that slippery slope into pseudo-narrativism that Pundy has decried from Nobilis and other games.
!i!
No, it really doesn't. Not unless you believe that a D&D PC's power
to walk with his own two feet somehow creates the same "pseudo-narrativism". Players using a power that they have
in a way that is permitted in the setting is never storygaming.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Mistwell;341006This is a ludicrous excuse. Your discussing the means, not the end, of obtaining narrative control.
Imagine a game that said the characters specifically can create any NPC with their specifically dictated looks and personality and knowledge, and any location of anything that does anything they want it to, and any object of any power whatsoever, and they are the only ones that could do this in that universe, and nothing can interfere with this "power".
Note, I am not in any way saying that IS Amber Diceless, I am just asking you to imagine it.
Now how is that not a degree of narrative control, just because the means of obtaining that control is a character "power"?
This passage demonstrates how utterly you fail to understand the point of roleplaying.
Even in your scenario, if your character could theoretically do ANYTHING (and that's a pretty boring game), it would still be a roleplaying game if the PLAYER was immersed in the CHARACTER, and thus doing things because it would be what the PC would want to do, and not because it is something the player wants to see happen in the "Narrative".
As usual, you miss the point entirely.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jibbajibba;341076My second issue is at the micro level. In all my games I encourage players to take decisions. So for me a player saying 'I head to a bar where I know some shifty characters and ask old Two-fingers what he knows about activities on the docks.' Is fine but to Pundy this crosses the narative control line. He would expect use of some character based skill and then for the GM to provide the name of the contact. I am comfortable enough to short circuit this process and allow the player to control it. I will keep in mind their skills and if we are in a game where information gathering or criminal-subculture are named skills I will probably ask for a skill check but I don't feel the need to be totally in control of the small stuff.
Now to me the assertion that the direct result of me being comfortable with my own ability to run a game with no need to sweat the edges is that I am no longer playing an RPG is ludicrous.
The question I would ask you is this: At what point do you draw the line?
Why would it be OK for a Player to decide autonomously that there's a bar with his old buddy Two-fingers, but not ok to decide that Fiona will conveniently decide to give him the Vorpal Sword that will kill the Jabberwocky?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;341171The question I would ask you is this: At what point do you draw the line?
Why would it be OK for a Player to decide autonomously that there's a bar with his old buddy Two-fingers, but not ok to decide that Fiona will conveniently decide to give him the Vorpal Sword that will kill the Jabberwocky?
RPGPundit
There is a line no doubt. No PC can in my game can forge a relationship with an existing NPC that I am in contol of so If Dave met Two-fingers in a bar and the next session Pete 'created' a realtionship with Two-fingers that would not wash. The character is already 'live' in game.
However, this is totally irrelevant to the point. The point is that even if I allowed a PC to get away with 'I go and see Fiona and get her to give me that vorpal sword' that is my decision as a GM. It in no way invalidates the fact that I am playing a Roleplaying game. It might mean that my role playing game is shit but it's still a roleplaying game.
If I am playing Monopoly and the players decide to create a new rule whereby we can all take loans from the bank with no colateral we are all still playing a board game. We might not be playing Monopoly (although try releasing a game that was just like Monopoly but with that single extra rule and I think a Judge might argue it's still monopoly ... but I digress) but we are sure as shit still playing a board game.
By drawing a line at any player control is unacceptable and then decrying any game that breaks that rule as Not a roleplaying game is just daft and it makes the remaining arguments weaker by association.
The rule about there having to be a GM is similarly weak. I can forsee a game state where a GM is not required. A game where the 'dungeon' was generated at random most standard actions were codified and exceptions outside those actions were dealt with by 'the player on your left' using a strict process flow or similar. I may not like to play this game but I think it could be a roleplaying game. Certainly in the computer world unless you count the primitive AIs there is no GM but most people would say WoW is a Roleplaying game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;341169Players using a power that they have in a way that is permitted in the setting is never storygaming.
I never said it was. :) I was poking fun at the fact that you having to say "Yes, but..." puts you on a slippery slope of your own creation. And you're totally right -- players using narrative control in a manner that is permitted by the rules and setting is not storygaming. It's also more than "ZERO".
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341229I never said it was. :) I was poking fun at the fact that you having to say "Yes, but..." puts you on a slippery slope of your own creation. And you're totally right -- players using narrative control in a manner that is permitted by the rules and setting is not storygaming. It's also more than "ZERO".
!i!
I've never, ever had to say "Yes, but...".
In Amber, you say "yes, you can do that", or "no you can't do that"; just like in any other real non-wuss RPG.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jibbajibba;341217There is a line no doubt. No PC can in my game can forge a relationship with an existing NPC that I am in contol of so If Dave met Two-fingers in a bar and the next session Pete 'created' a realtionship with Two-fingers that would not wash. The character is already 'live' in game.
However, this is totally irrelevant to the point.
Oh, but I think it isn't. You see, what you're saying when you admit to this is that essentially, you've just given a blanket and previously understood PERMISSION to your players to do this stuff, so long as its irrelevant. Its a permission you can REVOKE whenever you feel that what they attempt to do is beyond a "line" of YOUR choosing.
So essentially, you are playing a completely conventional game. At no moment do the Players have actual authority, they just have an understanding of your unspoken consent. Its no different than asking "could I know some guy at a tavern who could help me", except that you've already basically told them that the answer to this stuff is generally "yes", except when you decide to say that its "no". They don't need to ask, they can assume that the answer is "yes", because you will TELL THEM when its "no".
This is radically different from a game where the players have their own authority, to generate setting, in a way that you as the GM are not allowed to say "no" to them.
You are very much "drawing the line at player control", your players have no control, they just have your unspoken permission.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;341244I've never, ever had to say "Yes, but...".
So you're saying that you've never added a simple proviso in agreement with one of your players' statements of intent? This was kind of fun for a bit, but now I think you're just lying. Whatever, dude -- move the goalpost wherever you want.
!i!
A game is no longer an rpg when nobody brings any snacks.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341250So you're saying that you've never added a simple proviso in agreement with one of your players' statements of intent? This was kind of fun for a bit, but now I think you're just lying. Whatever, dude -- move the goalpost wherever you want.
!i!
You have him in the corner, so now comes the point where he says you just don't understand what an RPG is.
Quote from: RPGPundit;341170This passage demonstrates how utterly you fail to understand the point of roleplaying.
Even in your scenario, if your character could theoretically do ANYTHING (and that's a pretty boring game), it would still be a roleplaying game if the PLAYER was immersed in the CHARACTER,
This is hilarious. You've actually managed to confuse yourself. I was not arguing it was not an PRG dumbass. That was YOU making that argument earlier, not me. You're actually now arguing against yourself. Of course it would still be an RPG. If the majority of people playing that game call it an RPG, then it is an RPG.
Like I said, you don't yet really understand the argument I and countless others have been making to you over the years in this respect. That's OK though. You're allowed to like an RPG that gives the players a higher degree of narrative control than most RPGs while pretending it does not do that. As long as you are having fun (which, but the way, is the actual point of an RPG - not all your bullshit about immersion, but just having fun), then it's all good despite your lack of comprehension.
QuoteFortunately, your not important enough to matter and thus doing things because it would be what the PC would want to do, and not because it is something the player wants to see happen in the "Narrative".
In the scenario I outlined, it is both. Which was obvious, to anyone except you. I take that back - it was obvious to you also, you just know it's a corner you cannot get out of, so you have to deny it and then insult as a distraction. Despite how inane it looks for you to deny it.
At the point where a PC power lets them do anything without limitation and the GM must allow it according to the rules, it's both the PC and the Player controlling the narrative, regardless of the level of immersion. It cannot be helped in a scenario like that. At some point, ultimate PC power WILL bleed into players controlling narrative, just like a "story point", because on that level there is effectively no difference between the two in a game like that. Which is one reason why good games put limitations on PC powers - as a means of keeping narrative control in the hands of the GM.
As for all your other lame examples about PC powers of walking and spell casting, that is precisely why I have been saying Amber Diceless gives players a
higher degree of narrative control than
most other games. All RPGs offer players
some degree of narrative control, however small and often unnoticed. Amber gives them more of that control than most. Get it now?
Of course you do...but it's once again time for you to tell me how I don't understand the point of RPGs and how I must be a Forger and all your other low brow typical uncreative insults that you use when you know you're cornered and being asked to think for once. Because lets face it - you are not used to actually having to honestly deal with these issues. It's either your little sycophants kissing your ass and nodding their heads, or you dismiss people as Forgers. There is no actual communication in between for you, like always.
It has been that way for years, and probably always will be that way. Because, as you admitted in an interview, Pundit is a character you play, and this is one of the defining characteristics of that character.
Quote from: RPGPundit;341244I've never, ever had to say "Yes, but...".
In Amber, you say "yes, you can do that", or "no you can't do that"; just like in any other real non-wuss RPG.
You never said "Yes, but ... that's a -4 on your roll" ?
Quote from: Mistwell;341254At the point where a PC power lets them do anything without limitation and the GM must allow it according to the rules, it's both the PC and the Player controlling the narrative, regardless of the level of immersion. It cannot be helped in a scenario like that. At some point, ultimate PC power WILL bleed into players controlling narrative, just like a "story point",
Out of intererest: I never played high level AD&D but how does the "Wish" spell fit that description? (There was a limitation of some kind, even in the non-"limited" version of the spell? Like some wording issue? Was that the same in all editions?)
Quote from: RPGPundit;341245Oh, but I think it isn't. You see, what you're saying when you admit to this is that essentially, you've just given a blanket and previously understood PERMISSION to your players to do this stuff, so long as its irrelevant. Its a permission you can REVOKE whenever you feel that what they attempt to do is beyond a "line" of YOUR choosing.
So essentially, you are playing a completely conventional game. At no moment do the Players have actual authority, they just have an understanding of your unspoken consent. Its no different than asking "could I know some guy at a tavern who could help me", except that you've already basically told them that the answer to this stuff is generally "yes", except when you decide to say that its "no". They don't need to ask, they can assume that the answer is "yes", because you will TELL THEM when its "no".
This is radically different from a game where the players have their own authority, to generate setting, in a way that you as the GM are not allowed to say "no" to them.
You are very much "drawing the line at player control", your players have no control, they just have your unspoken permission.
RPGPundit
Oh I agree totally that my situation is conventional, in fact I think my approach is very much the norm. It's you that said there was a break with it :)
However, as I noted my substantive point was that this was irrelevant and even if I allowed more control allowing players to have narrative influence it would not make the rest of the game invalid. If I introduced a story system into Amber, you get 3 counters to spend ala Hero points in the James Bond RPG, now as there are no dice you will use them to make a guard about your size walk round the corner so you can knock him out and pinch his clothes, or you place a pair of crossed swords over the fireplace just when you need a weapon (we are not talking about using Pattern to do this but player whim) then am I no longer playing an RPG? Am I still playing Amber? The GM can do this on fiat or allow it to flow from Stuff. Why not allow the players to do it sometimes as well? This isn't Forgist. As I noted the James Bond RPG was doing this back in the mid 80s.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;341289Out of intererest: I never played high level AD&D but how does the "Wish" spell fit that description? (There was a limitation of some kind, even in the non-"limited" version of the spell? Like some wording issue? Was that the same in all editions?)
Pundy has an absolute point here there is a real difference between the Character having a power to affect the game world and the player having an ability to affect the game world. With the Wish the character has a power they can use to affect stuff (in early editions no it was not limited but generally houseruled, no wishing for more wishes etc etc ) in a similar way to how Amberites can shift shadow to create new realities.
These powers are explicable in game terms. They are part of the inherent logic of the setting. If I can grant wishes then I can make myself into a powerful sorcerer etc etc . If I can walk shadows then I can find one where this bar is a hell of a lot friendlier.
The power of a Player to influence the game wold is separate. It is not inherently logical, although the best examples of it try to be. The player makes decisions for narrative or tactical reasons that affect the game world directly. This is totally different from an in game power. The effects might appear the same but the actuality there is no comparison.
Now I would say so what? A mechanic, part of that Game part of the RPG, that allows some degree of the Role (taken to be playing a thing in a defined place) to be influences as part of the game sets up no issues for me. In a card game you might have a mulligan rule for poor starting hands, you might give the weakest player a couple of sets advantage. Games make these sort of changes all the time.
Now I might argue that I wouldn't want to play a game where such control was not strictly regulated. I might argue that I wouldn't play any games where such rules formed part of the rules at all. However, that is irrelevant to the argument that they are RPGs. What any individual likes or doesn't like is totally irrelevant to the defintion of an RPG.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341250So you're saying that you've never added a simple proviso in agreement with one of your players' statements of intent? This was kind of fun for a bit, but now I think you're just lying. Whatever, dude -- move the goalpost wherever you want.
!i!
Never as a response to somehow being or feeling "obliged" to say "yes" to my players, no. Nor as a way to negotiate setting control with them. The GM controls the setting, the players control their characters.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Mistwell;341254This is hilarious. You've actually managed to confuse yourself. I was not arguing it was not an PRG dumbass. That was YOU making that argument earlier, not me. You're actually now arguing against yourself. Of course it would still be an RPG. If the majority of people playing that game call it an RPG, then it is an RPG.
So you've missed the point yet again? Jesus fuck, its like talking to a brick wall. Its an RPG whenever the player is limited to acting within the confines of what his CHARACTER knows, sees and is able to do.
QuoteLike I said, you don't yet really understand the argument I and countless others have been making to you over the years in this respect.
No, you and many of those "others" don't seem to grasp one of the most basic elements of the RPG: The difference between PLAYER and CHARACTER, and the need to immerse in the character.
QuoteThat's OK though. You're allowed to like an RPG that gives the players a higher degree of narrative control than most RPGs while pretending it does not do that.
Amber gives players ZERO narrative control outside of their characters. By your logic, a game where the player characters have mecha would mean they'd have more "narrative control" than one where they didn't.
QuoteIn the scenario I outlined, it is both. Which was obvious, to anyone except you. I take that back - it was obvious to you also, you just know it's a corner you cannot get out of, so you have to deny it and then insult as a distraction. Despite how inane it looks for you to deny it.
Given that no one who actually knows the Amber game and isn't an already-known Forger or Pundit-hater has agreed with your side of the argument, I'd say that the one looking "inane" here right now is you, essentially making up an utterly bullshit line of argument just to annoy, because you know you'd be utterly incapable of lasting a second in honest debate.
QuoteAt the point where a PC power lets them do anything without limitation and the GM must allow it according to the rules, it's both the PC and the Player controlling the narrative, regardless of the level of immersion.
Uh huh. So you really don't understand what "Immersion" is, do you? You could just admit that, you know...
QuoteIt cannot be helped in a scenario like that. At some point, ultimate PC power WILL bleed into players controlling narrative, just like a "story point", because on that level there is effectively no difference between the two in a game like that.
Your argument amounts to "PC power level equates to Player Narrative Control". Which makes as much sense as "level of sausage spiciness equates to overall velocity". In other words, not at all.
Again, by your logic, a game where people are playing 9th level wizards has more "narrative control" for those players than one where they're playing 1st-level wizards, just because the former have more spells. You do realize that making utterly retarded statements is not a substitute for actually accomplishing anything in your neverending struggle against me and this site, right? Maybe you should go complain about us on other websites again...
QuoteWhich is one reason why good games put limitations on PC powers - as a means of keeping narrative control in the hands of the GM.
You really give away the total ignorance forgers have for the RPG in general, you know. If I were the other Storygamer Swine, I'd be giving you a vicious sack beating right now for making them look so bad.
You put limitations on PC powers for emulation of genre purposes, and occasionally for game balance purposes. It has FUCK ALL to do with "narrative control". Dogs in the Vinyard has people playing regular humans, and players have immense narrative control. On the other hand, in ultra-high-level D&D, PCs are close to demigods, and yet have virtually no narrative control.
QuoteAs for all your other lame examples about PC powers of walking and spell casting, that is precisely why I have been saying Amber Diceless gives players a higher degree of narrative control than most other games. All RPGs offer players some degree of narrative control, however small and often unnoticed. Amber gives them more of that control than most. Get it now?
I get that you are determined to go down with the ship, yes. You've made it crystal clear that no matter how much of an idiot you are shown to be, you aren't going to even bother taking on a different tactic. Congratulations on sticking with the losing play to the bitter end.
QuoteOf course you do...but it's once again time for you to tell me how I don't understand the point of RPGs and how I must be a Forger and all your other low brow typical uncreative insults that you use when you know you're cornered and being asked to think for once. Because lets face it - you are not used to actually having to honestly deal with these issues. It's either your little sycophants kissing your ass and nodding their heads, or you dismiss people as Forgers. There is no actual communication in between for you, like always.
That's quite the chip on your shoulder there, little buddy. It'd been a while now since theRPGsite was visited by one of the penis-envy crowd.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;341288You never said "Yes, but ... that's a -4 on your roll" ?
You are missing the meaning of "yes, but". If a player is asking for permission to try to roll a die to try to accomplish something where you the GM decide the difficulty and the outcome, he has zero narrative control in that premise to begin with.
If he says "could I try to swing off a tree branch to get to the other side of the river? What would be my difficulty?", he's exerting no narrative control in the first place, and your question is moot.
If on the other hand, he says "THERE IS a tree there, and a friendly hobbit put a rope swing there, so I use that", where none of the above was previously described by me, there he is exerting narrative control. And I have never, ever said "yes but" to that.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;341435You are missing the meaning of "yes, but". If a player is asking for permission to try to roll a die to try to accomplish something where you the GM decide the difficulty and the outcome, he has zero narrative control in that premise to begin with.
If he says "could I try to swing off a tree branch to get to the other side of the river? What would be my difficulty?", he's exerting no narrative control in the first place, and your question is moot.
If on the other hand, he says "THERE IS a tree there, and a friendly hobbit put a rope swing there, so I use that", where none of the above was previously described by me, there he is exerting narrative control. And I have never, ever said "yes but" to that.
RPGPundit
By that approach, Burning Empires doesn't give narrative control, either...
The player states a "truth", the GM sets a roll on a wises skill, and if successful, then that truth is in fact truth for the setting. The GM can set absurdly high difficulty, or say yes. (The GM isn't supposed to say "No"; "say yes, or roll the dice", tho' you can roll the dice for absurdly hard. Sometimes, the absurdly hard happens....)
EG: Player is being chased down into the sewers, and needs a hidden junction box to hid in. "I want a junction box to hide in, just out of sight from the main path, and I want to notice it, so I can use it."
"Ob 4, Sewer Wise," says the GM. (It's unlikely but not unreasonable.)
clatter of dice... if 4 successes, then the box is here to be hidden in, and not easily spotted. If 0-3, either (a) no box, (b) box is in plain view, (c) box is too small, (d) box is already full, etc...
It seems you haven't absorbed the implication of the words "asking permission".
Quote from: aramis;341458By that approach, Burning Empires doesn't give narrative control, either...
The player states a "truth", the GM sets a roll on a wises skill, and if successful, then that truth is in fact truth for the setting. The GM can set absurdly high difficulty, or say yes. (The GM isn't supposed to say "No"; "say yes, or roll the dice", tho' you can roll the dice for absurdly hard. Sometimes, the absurdly hard happens....)
EG: Player is being chased down into the sewers, and needs a hidden junction box to hid in. "I want a junction box to hide in, just out of sight from the main path, and I want to notice it, so I can use it."
"Ob 4, Sewer Wise," says the GM. (It's unlikely but not unreasonable.)
clatter of dice... if 4 successes, then the box is here to be hidden in, and not easily spotted. If 0-3, either (a) no box, (b) box is in plain view, (c) box is too small, (d) box is already full, etc...
If the GM can't just say outright "No, you can't do that" or "no, that's not there/happening", then the player is very much asserting narrative control.
It seems pretty retarded to me for someone playing a game where this is the basic concept, to then turn around and say no in essence by setting an impossible success difficulty. If you do so, then you're essentially admitting that a game where the GM isn't allowed to say "NO" to his players is a game that sucks.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;341506If the GM can't just say outright "No, you can't do that" or "no, that's not there/happening", then the player is very much asserting narrative control.
It seems pretty retarded to me for someone playing a game where this is the basic concept, to then turn around and say no in essence by setting an impossible success difficulty. If you do so, then you're essentially admitting that a game where the GM isn't allowed to say "NO" to his players is a game that sucks.
RPGPundit
Since there's an open-ending dice mechic (invokable by an expendable resource), and additional dice for other expendables, it's quite possible to make some rather absurd difficulties. I had a player get lucky and roll 12s vs Ob 9... with 3d skill. (He was able to boost the skill with expendables, etc.)
The other thing, tho, is that the GM sets all difficulties in BW/BE/MG... but players get the option to chicken out before rolling.
The rules specifically uggest using the modifiers to discourage such funkyness. There is also a provision for the group (or any member, including the GM) to say "no" if a proposed bit of information contradicts anything previously established...
It's actually far more fun to set that difficulty at 7-12... because, if they made it, they
and the spirits of dice wanted them to.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;340457Thanks for the replies. I ask this question because I tend to agree with Clash's post, but my current game in progress has an abstract combat system that superficially resembles a board game.
For me, the line is when you start taking things away:
-The GM and player roles
-Freedom of choice to take any action within a character's power
-Freedom to run any type of story that can conceivably happen in a setting.
-Rules that serve as a framework for the game. Though I prefer them to represent the "physics" of the setting, I'd still consider something an RPG if it did the rest. I just might not play it.
Stuff like that. I'm not so concerned with how you get there, just that you can do the things above and more.
MM, that is very close to my working definition. Perhaps you were hanging around on EN World when we were tossing ideas around?
1. A role-playing game takes the form of a narration, with play consisting of a series of logically connected events.
2. Critical game decisions are made collaboratively by using a set of rules.
3. At least one player takes on the role of a specific character, making decisions as if that character.
4. Any possible action that could be taken by a character can be adjudicated within the immersive framework of the game.
Quote from: Shazbot79;341078If a games publishers identify it as a roleplaying game, then that in and of itself is good enough for me.
There are, of course, some games that I like better than others, but that doesn't, in essence, make them any more or less a roleplaying game. Attempting to objectively define what makes something a "roleplaying game" is a largely prententious and masturbatory effort to codify one's subjective value judgments.
Eh, I can see a value in identifying what makes it fun for me. For instance, the face to face interaction is an important component to me, and I really consider online games to be something different. Others enjoy them greatly and think of them as the same kind of fun as a tabletop. This is okay. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;341171The question I would ask you is this: At what point do you draw the line?
Why would it be OK for a Player to decide autonomously that there's a bar with his old buddy Two-fingers, but not ok to decide that Fiona will conveniently decide to give him the Vorpal Sword that will kill the Jabberwocky?
RPGPundit
Every narrative control I've seen has a provision for GM veto in there. Players should get a good bang for their narrative control buck, but not too much. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;341434So you've missed the point yet again? Jesus fuck, its like talking to a brick wall. Its an RPG whenever the player is limited to acting within the confines of what his CHARACTER knows, sees and is able to do.
Things in AD&D that the CHARACTER doesn't know about.
Hit points
Saving Throws
Attack Matrices
Levels
Indeed, the hit points are a sort of narrative mechanic. I understand that some people find it distasteful for the players to have points/powers just because they're a PC. Personally, I don't care why John McClaine is awesome, I just enjoy watching him do it. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;341434blah blah blah, same bullshit different day
"Of course you do...but it's once again time for you to tell me how I don't understand the point of RPGs and how I must be a Forger and all your other low brow typical uncreative insults that you use when you know you're cornered and being asked to think for once. Because lets face it - you are not used to actually having to honestly deal with these issues. It's either your little sycophants kissing your ass and nodding their heads, or you dismiss people as Forgers. There is no actual communication in between for you, like always. "
Like I predicted, to a tee!
Wee!
I said: "Imagine a game that said the characters specifically can create any NPC with their specifically dictated looks and personality and knowledge, and any location of anything that does anything they want it to, and any object of any power whatsoever, and they are the only ones that could do this in that universe,
and nothing can interfere with this "power". Note, I am not in any way saying that IS Amber Diceless, I am just asking you to imagine it."
You said: "No that is not narrative control, you evil swine forger dummy poopyhead".
Except now...
Quote from: RPGPundit;341506If the GM can't just say outright "No, you can't do that" or "no, that's not there/happening", then the player is very much asserting narrative control.
So when I posited a fictional game where such was precisely the case (NOTHING can interfere with the power), then it was not narrative control. But now, unless the GM can say "you can't do that", you admit it IS narrative control!
So which is it, are you just not very bright, confused, think nobody is looking, or a weasel? Pick one.
I think there's a bit of a disconnect on what you think of as narrative control and what Pundit thinks is narrative control--internal vs external in a way.
In traditional RPGs, players do indeed drive the narrative, but they do so from within the game-world and according to its rules. If a game grants a PC the power to destroy worlds, they can certainly use that ability to influence the outcome of the narrative and create (literally) earth-shattering events, but it is all within the context of the game. When you do this in a game with narrative control mechanics for PCs, these sorts of things happen because the player uses these external mechanics to tug the game in their direction, rather than acting with and being bound by the world.
It's the difference between making a deadly climb up the mountain because your character has the ability to do so vs. some divine spinner of fate deciding that you make the climb up the mountain regardless of what your in-game abilities say is possible.
Not that I completely agree with Pundit. Even traditional RPGs mingle OOC knowledge and IC knowledge a great deal, allowing players to navigate circumstances for their characters as if they were guardian angels rather than immersing themselves completely in the role and being truly limited by the game-world and their characters abilities. Gygax talked at great-length about player skill and what an important role it played in successful D&D campaigns, in fact he was a real proponent of Not Taking Shit Seriously and treating it as a game in the truest sense. The GM still had ultimate authority, but the players weren't strictly bound by the intellect or abilities of their characters in all cases, and were often encouraged to metagame to influence the outcome of certain situations. Good GMs were often encouraged to reward creative behavior.
Personally, I view narrative controls as a mechanized version of working with your GM. Traditionally, you'd have to argue a pretty good point to get your way, and it became sort of a social game where you'd have to persuade your GM to agree with your course of action and if it were possible--this was especially true of out-of-combat situations where the rules had no dominion and it was solely a matter of convincing the GM. In a way, that's almost attempting to assert narrative control using the GM as a sort of proxy. Now I don't think action-points or die-rolls can really substitute for the fun you can have bouncing ideas off your GM and watching his reaction, but they're just another way to deal with how much player control can be exerted on a character or a situation.
(Oh, right. I'm new. Hi.)
Welcome to theRPGsite, Peregrin.
Mistwell, you're an idiot, as always. You're saying, what if the PCs had unlimited power, and NOTHING could interfere with that power? Ok, great, any GM stupid enough to run that game would not say "no", then, because that's the essence of the setting being emulated. Of course, I'd like to know exactly what would happen when two players tried to do "opposite" things with their power?
In other words, the example you give is absurd, and if it were developed beyond the most shallow notion you presented, no doubt you'd see there'd be situations where even this scenario would need adjudication, and that would mean that the GM would be the one to decide (unless you weren't playing an RPG at all!), and then the GM would be the one saying "no".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;342006Welcome to theRPGsite, Peregrin.
Mistwell, you're an idiot, as always. You're saying, what if the PCs had unlimited power, and NOTHING could interfere with that power?
Yes, several pages ago. So glad you finally caught up. How funny you're calling me an idiot while simultaneously admitting you didn't understand the scenario being presented initially and were actually replying to your assumptions rather than what I had actually said. Next time I misunderstand something you say because I never actually read it, I will be sure to follow your lead and simply call you an idiot for my failure to read what you write.
QuoteOk, great, any GM stupid enough to run that game would not say "no", then, because that's the essence of the setting being emulated. Of course, I'd like to know exactly what would happen when two players tried to do "opposite" things with their power?
In other words, the example you give is absurd, and if it were developed beyond the most shallow notion you presented, no doubt you'd see there'd be situations where even this scenario would need adjudication, and that would mean that the GM would be the one to decide (unless you weren't playing an RPG at all!), and then the GM would be the one saying "no".
RPGPundit
Yes the example I gave is absurd, and intended as such. It represents one type of theoretical game at an extreme end of a scale, so we can get past any evasion provided by various "yes, but" type answers.
My point is that at the far end of the scale that I presented, there is no real difference between player control of narrative and character control of narrative, because there is no way to determine if it is one or the other in that scenario. Player's could freely control the narrative if they wished, and use "character powers" as the excuse for this control, and there would be no real way to determine if it is an excuse or just them responding to immersion in the game. Get it now?
I believe player's have degrees of narrative control in any RPG, on a sliding scale depending on the game and the GM.
At one end of the scale, the GM has such a firm grip on narrative control that any player control over the narrative is so minuscule and inconsequential that nobody would notice it or think it worth mentioning if they did. It equates with your example of a player saying his character walks down the street, thus "controlling" the narrative by prompting the GM to describe what the character sees. Is that a form of control over the narrative? Sure, but it's an inconsequential one.
No matter how good the immersion, there will occasionally be times when a player is on the spot and will think "I do not know what my character would do, so I will just have them walk forward and see what happens, just to keep things moving along". That's not a character control over the narrative, it's a player one. Player's sometimes make choices that are not dependent on characters and immersion. Anyone who denies this has been behind the GM's screen too long.
At the other end of the scale we have these idiotic Forge games, which you rightly decry as stupid, which give players (rather than characters) narrative control over the game. And the extreme end on that spectrum you have an elimination of the GM entirely from the process.
Good RPGs tend towards the GM-control end of the spectrum.
That you call me a Forger when I agree with you that Forge games and story games suck goes to show how robotic you are in making that accusation about anyone who challenges your opinion in any way. I do not play Forge games, never have, and never will. Indeed, for the most part, I am a D&D player. The only other games I have played or have expressed a desire to play are actually games YOU like or at least expressed an interest in. The only other games I have even bought in the last several years, other than D&D games, are Mouse Guard, and Monsters and Other Childish Things. And I downloaded Amber Diceless. I might have a lot to learn about RPGs, but that doesn't make me a Forger and more than it makes you a Forger for liking a game like Amber.
In my opinion, Amber Diceless, by giving so much control over the setting to the characters, starts to bleed into the area where it becomes difficult to tell if it is characters controlling the setting (which is an important aspect of the narrative) through powers, or players controlling the setting using the excuse of character power.
You claim immersion essentially prevents this, but I disagree. With an average or worse GM, Amber Diceless seems more apt to be abused by player control over the setting than other RPGs. That is my point.
YOU are likely a good GM who wouldn't let that happen. But that doesn't disprove that Amber Diceless is, for lack of a better term, a more "advanced" type RPG that requires more trust and competency to play. And in my opinion it is more vulnerable to player manipulation of the narrative because of this, due to how powerful the characters are with regard to the setting. The more powerful the character powers, the more vulnerable a game can be to player control over the narrative in the hands of a poor GM.
And yes, that goes for any RPG, including D&D. If an inexperienced DM tries to DM a high level campaign for the first time, and the players want to take more control over the narrative, they probably can.
I just think Amber Diceless is more vulnerable to this kind of thing than many other RPGs.
The accusation that Amber often has leveled against it (wrongly, i would say) is that the GM has TOO MUCH power, not too little.
And 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.
The 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
Quote from: RPGPundit;342076... the point of an RPG isn't to try to tell a "story". Its to play in an emulated world.
RPGPundit
Nope, 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.
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.
Sure, but there story is an emergent property from play. You don't sit down to create a story, you sit down to play characters in the world and the outcome of that play is a story.
What Pundy is attacking is the direct creation of story being the goal of play, story not as an emergent phenomenon but as a consciously created outcome. Whether one agrees with the attack or not, it is I think a meaningful distinction.
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.
This is incorrect. If a story doesn't emerge...
that doesn't say anything whatsoever about the play.
Story
does not necessarily emerge from good play. "A story resulting" is due to in-game events transpiring, that happened to do so in [what could be seen as] a "story-like" way.
"Emergent story" is, as most often used in RPG forums, a snide, autobot counter to the claim that some still occasionally dare to make - or unwittingly make - of
roleplaying games being in any way
storytelling games.
Not that I agree that they are storytelling games, or have to be, more to the point. But "story resulting from play" is still, all too often, simply a mindless slapdown, brought to you by self-righteous, panicked herds still reliving the 90s.
Surely its up to the individual group. If you want story gamey elements then fine if you want a total sandbox then fine.
I don't really mind people saying 'my way of playing is better than yours' (shit I know my way of playing is the best or I wouldn't play that way) but when it turns into 'the way you play is not an RPG.' or 'the way you play is not actually how you think you play and what you need to do is ...' I do get slightly annoyed.
We have these elements to most "RPGS"
The Environment
The Plot
The Characters
The Players
The Rules
The RPG bit is how all these things interact. You might favour one over another you might have rules that give all players access to control you might not. Why does it matter? Just have fun and stop judging everyone else...
Jeebus, I disagree with the "story" guy and the "not story" guys. Jibbajibba has the right of it, IMO
Edit: I've always said that the "G" in RPG also stands for Gestalt.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: jibbajibba;342097...but when it turns into 'the way you play is not an RPG.' ... I do get slightly annoyed.
Without being snarky, what if I say that I consider Monopoly to be a role-playing game. More specifically, what if I
sell you Monopoly as an rpg?
The problem, as I see it, is that rpg is used as a term that ‘defines’ something, just as Eurogame, Ameritrash, wargame, card game or board game define certain types of thing. Calling Monopoly a board game is okay, and it would clearly be wrong to call it a Eurogame, Ameritrash, card game or a wargame, but could I call it a role-playing game? If not, why not?
Like I said, I really do not mean to be snarky, but I think there is a serious point that underlines the discussion so far. Namely, how do we define what makes an rpg and rpg?
Quote from: Glazer;342102Without being snarky, what if I say that I consider Monopoly to be a role-playing game. More specifically, what if I sell you Monopoly as an rpg?
The problem, as I see it, is that rpg is used as a term that 'defines' something, just as Eurogame, Ameritrash, wargame, card game or board game define certain types of thing. Calling Monopoly a board game is okay, and it would clearly be wrong to call it a Eurogame, Ameritrash, card game or a wargame, but could I call it a role-playing game? If not, why not?
Like I said, I really do not mean to be snarky, but I think there is a serious point that underlines the discussion so far. Namely, how do we define what makes an rpg and rpg?
Well again taking things to an absurd degree to make a point :)
Monopoly fails to meet 'The Character' element of my list. If you were able to create your own capitalist guy then it woudl be a RPG. Bit railroady for my tastes though. There in an environment - the city in question. There are players and rules. The plot is a bit crap, and doesn't change between games but there are no characters.
And these two "Eurogame, Ameritrash" are of dubious pedigree as recognised game types.
Quote from: RPGPundit;342076The 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
Hmmm.....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.
Quote from: jibbajibba;342103Well again taking things to an absurd degree to make a point :)
Well, you know, needs must :)
To make things a bit harder, then, what about games like Battlestar Galactica (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37111), or Fury of Dracula (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20963)?
Quote from: Glazer;342121Well, you know, needs must :)
To make things a bit harder, then, what about games like Battlestar Galactica (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37111), or Fury of Dracula (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20963)?
That is better you get very close with FoD a much more interesting position.
So of my 5 points you hit all of them. Environment, character, plot, players and rules. Each Player takes on the role of a hunter or of Dracula the actions are limited and the game is a bit of a railroad but yes at its essence FoD would be a RPG.
Before this is dismissed out of hand think about it. There is no way FoD would have been created in that form if it wasn't for D&D. The designer definitely took an RPG format and restricted it down to a board game so for me yes its an RPG.
Quote from: jibbajibba;342123That is better you get very close with FoD a much more interesting position.
So of my 5 points you hit all of them. Environment, character, plot, players and rules. Each Player takes on the role of a hunter or of Dracula the actions are limited and the game is a bit of a railroad but yes at its essence FoD would be a RPG.
Before this is dismissed out of hand think about it. There is no way FoD would have been created in that form if it wasn't for D&D. The designer definitely took an RPG format and restricted it down to a board game so for me yes its an RPG.
What 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.
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.
I 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.
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
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;342256Yes 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?
Yes, I would have had a lengthy discussion with the GM either then or later that he was missing the point of an RPG, especially if the RPG you were playing included options like skills and maneuvers.
I guess more accurately I would say, "The game is still an RPG. But your GM stopped playing it like one."
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.
A story can emerge from good play. However, bad play can emerge from
telling a story rather than creating one. Confusing RPG story-telling with literary story-telling is an error of equivocation.
Using my definition of an RPG:
- Monopoly is not an RPG because you do not play "As-if" your token, and because you cannot adjudicate any conceivable action. For instance, in Monopoly, you cannot stage a jail break, commit arson, or assassinate your fellow tokens.
- Capes is not an RPG because you do not play "as-if" the character you begin with. In fact, you may control several characters and the process of play is to control the outcome of the story, not to control "your" character. Capes is a story-telling game that involves tactical contests for the authorial privilege.
- Baron Munchausen is not an RPG, but a storytelling game, because play is constrained to telling anecdotes and challenging each other to duels. You cannot, for instance, suddenly decide it's time to embark on a
new adventure and then adjudicate the results.
- Fantasy wargames, in the technical sense I use the term, are RPGs. Fantasy wargames are games that involve a lot of traditional simulation, but I don't want to get into Forgeian discussions of what simulation is. Essentially, these are games that create systems for resolving any conceivable action. D&D, Champions/Hero, GURPS, and so forth.
- Dramatic or storytelling RPGs are RPGs. I think it's pretty clear how Vampire, whether played in a fairly free-form manner or by the dice, fits the traditional criteria.
- CRPGs are not RPGs, because the computer will not resolve any conceivable action. For instance, in City of Heroes, it is not possible to use your fire powers to burn away the obstructing trees in Perez Park, indeed, you cannot target them. In an RPG it is possible to succeed or fail at burning through trees with your superpowers.
- Immersive, freeform roleplaying games are RPGs, provided there is some mechanism in place for deciding who gets to decide.
Quote- Monopoly is not an RPG because you do not play "As-if" your token, and because you cannot adjudicate any conceivable action. For instance, in Monopoly, you cannot stage a jail break[...].
What are you talking about? If you want to stage a jailbreak in Monopoly, you can do so in any number of ways. According to the official rules,
QuoteA player gets out of Jail by(1.) throwing doubles on any of his next three turns. (If he succeeds in doing this he immediately moves forward the number of spaces shown by his doubles throw. Even though he has thrown doubles he does not take another turn.); (2.) using the "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he has it; (3.) purchasing the "Get Out of Jail Free" card from another player and playing it; (4.) paying a fine of $50 before he rolls the dice on either of his next two turns.
If a player does not throw doubles by his third turn he must pay the $50 fine. He then gets out of Jail and immediately moves forward the number of spaces shown by his throw.
Only by paying a fine are you absolutely not staging a jailbreak. A player who is in jail has every right to declare how they are attempting to get out on their turn, whether it be by digging through a wall, hiding in the laundry, carving a gun out of soap, appealing for clemency, etc. To resolve the attempt, the player may either roll dice or expend a fate point in the form of a "Get out of Jail Free" card. If they narrate an attempted jailbreak and the resolution says they get out of jail, then they break out.
(Yes, this post is facetious but it has a point.)
Quote from: pawsplay;342498A story can emerge from good play. However, bad play can emerge from telling a story rather than creating one. Confusing RPG story-telling with literary story-telling is an error of equivocation.
Good play results in a story, and good GMing has prepared for a number of potential story developments...
But yes, telling a fixed story generally isn't good play. It's non-play, one of several forms... but there are times when a fixed story is useful: exposition of past events that have bearing on present state and future events. But even then, moderation is requisite.
@Pundit: I often go in with intent of story in broad brush strokes; a Villain, his goal, and his plan of action. Once the players go in, he may or may not get to proceed as planned. The players may or may not figure out he's the power behind the events that are happening. It makes my players far happier to be able to figure out it's a cohesive whole that they are in fact disrupting, rather than suspecting that they simply linked random elements together.
Quote from: aramis;342536@Pundit: I often go in with intent of story in broad brush strokes; a Villain, his goal, and his plan of action. Once the players go in, he may or may not get to proceed as planned. The players may or may not figure out he's the power behind the events that are happening. It makes my players far happier to be able to figure out it's a cohesive whole that they are in fact disrupting, rather than suspecting that they simply linked random elements together.
I generally do the same thing, actually. But that's not "creating a story". That is, at best, creating a "setup".
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;342579I generally do the same thing, actually. But that's not "creating a story". That is, at best, creating a "setup".
RPGPundit
The intent is, however, that story continues from the interaction of it and the players.
Just like a good novel shows that the world existed before we came to view the characters in it, a good RPG campaign has story before play, and the play continues that story.
That's part of why G123 worked for me... there's more going on than meets the eye, and in D123, you get into the why... but the story begins well before G1.
The intent is that some kind of ACTIVITY will happen, and that activity may then be turned into some kind of a story. Some may be better than others, you may end up with the brave heroes killing the orcs and rescuing the princess or you may end up with the brave heroes spending 7 hours of game time wandering through wilderness hexes without notable encounter or you may end up with the brave heroes all murdered by an Owlbear, game over.
The point is that "story" is INCIDENTAL. It happens as a By-product. The point of the whole thing is not "story", its adventure.
When you make the "setup" mentioned earlier, you do not already know how things will go. If you do, you're not playing an RPG. If you don't, you're not telling a story.
Its that fucking simple.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;342685When you make the "setup" mentioned earlier, you do not already know how things will go. If you do, you're not playing an RPG. If you don't, you're not telling a story.
Its that fucking simple.
RPGPundit
No it's not.
If you do
know you could be railroading but you're still playing an RPG, not a very good one, IMO, but there you go. If you don't
know, you could be telling a "story" in an improv manner, making it up as you go along.
Personally, I don't care if the so-called "story" happens before, during or after. I'm not too fond of aramis's "
good play results in a story" but that's another sto...tale.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: RPGPundit;342685The point is that "story" is INCIDENTAL. It happens as a By-product. The point of the whole thing is not "story", its adventure.
RPGPundit
Sorry, but that's the real disconnect: I want story as the primary product of the process. One of my better campaigns never got into anything even close to "adventure" but wound up being an engaging and powerful story... told from the standpoint of the board of directors of a corporation.
The goal was to put characters into a situation where a story would result... and it did. Heated debates, plans made, actions taken by remote...
It was collaborative story creation, 5 players and the game, jointly all six contributing to make the setup into a story.
Quote from: aramis;342699Sorry, but that's the real disconnect: I want story as the primary product of the process...
Far be it from me to tell you to stop doing what you enjoy.
However, historically speaking, that isn't the purpose of playing an RPG, just as telling the story of a battle isn't the purpose of a wargame.
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;342701However, historically speaking, that isn't the purpose of playing an RPG, just as telling the story of a battle isn't the purpose of a wargame.
Could you talk more about this? It's completely baffling to me, so we must be crossing some definitional stream somewhere (probably at "story") and I want to know why this is so obviously true to you and obviously false to me. Thanks!
Quote from: Halfjack;342705Could you talk more about this? It's completely baffling to me, so we must be crossing some definitional stream somewhere (probably at "story") and I want to know why this is so obviously true to you and obviously false to me. Thanks!
Since it was several pages ago, I'll just repost it:
QuoteThis definition [of "RPG"] can be found by tracing the history that lead up to the first published game unanimously agreed to be an RPG, D&D:
The Prussian wargame Kriegspiel, which originated about 1811, had a variant called Free Kriegspiel, in which a referee was allowed to change the rules to accommodate any unusual tactics the players might attempt. However, this game would probably not be considered an RPG.
To my knowledge, the first true RPG was Braunstein, a game based on wargame rules in which each player took control of a single character, and the referee (Major David Wesely) adjudicated their actions. Dave Arneson, coauthor of the original Dungeons & Dragons, was a player in the 4th session of this game (it wasn't really a campaign, just separate confrontations). You can read more about Braunstein here.
The first published RPG (and thus the archetype for purpose of definition) was titled and subtitled Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. The books don't directly give a definition of the game; they assume that you understand what a wargame is. It presents itself as a variation on wargaming.
I would say, then, that the GM (who can alter the rules and scenario in order to simulate a game world) is what makes a game an RPG.
For example: if you were to play Monopoly, but added a GM, who could create economic situations, adjudicate one player's protection racket, and another player's Forex investment, then it would be an RPG.
Also, I'll repost Major Wesely's comment on the term:
Quote...I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared, as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing, already existed: The term was already being used for (1) a tool used to train actors for improvisation (an example being the Cheese Shop Game since imortalized by Monty Python) and (2) a tool used for group therapy and psychiatric analysis ("Pretend you are an animal. What kind of an animal do you want to be? How does your aniimal feel about Janet?") And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty. I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck with "RPG".
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;342734Since it was several pages ago, I'll just repost it:
I would say, then, that the GM (who can alter the rules and scenario in order to simulate a game world) is what makes a game an RPG.
For example: if you were to play Monopoly, but added a GM, who could create economic situations, adjudicate one player's protection racket, and another player's Forex investment, then it would be an RPG.
That is not a bad definition but you are assuming a GM and youu are assuming said GM will allow you to act outside of the rules. Looking at MMORPGs I do think these are RPGs I don't like them for a lot of reasons but I think there is a space within them that players, not all players but some, use to role play.
For example when I played Wow one character I played was an Orcish Inventor that made whatever dodad it was that I had access to. I also used him as a mule for my main character to sell the stuff the other guy collected and posted to him. I could have done this sans roleplay of course but you can take the boy out of Manhattan and all that so rather than walk to the auction house I would stand on a stump and regale passers-by with tales of my wares. 'Roll-up Roll -up, one day only lovely Hunters leggin's I aint asking 3 gold Shit I aint even asking 4 gold, 3 gold and their yours and I'm cutting me own throat.' The Orc also skimmed an extra 20% off the top of any profit he made on the stuff he sold for my other character, bloody crook. Now to my mind that is roleplaying and WoW is definitely a game so ...
I really think there are ways of sucessfully removing the GM from a game and it still being an RGP. Maybe not a great RPG but fuck it there are lots of those. There might be already be games out there that use a card system or a virtual GM, I have no idea.
I think that a computer RPG is properly a different thing. That is to say, while a traditional RPG is "a game with a GM", a computer RPG is "a computer game that resembles a traditional RPG".
For instance, a computer game is usually called an RPG when it has classes, levels, and the like. However, these things are not required for a pen and paper RPG.
Sorry, HR, I was more interested in your assertion that the purpose of a wargame is *not* to wind up telling a story about a battle.
Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;342739I think that a computer RPG is properly a different thing. That is to say, while a traditional RPG is "a game with a GM", a computer RPG is "a computer game that resembles a traditional RPG".
For instance, a computer game is usually called an RPG when it has classes, levels, and the like. However, these things are not required for a pen and paper RPG.
Again I think you are being too specific for a generic 'rpg' defition. You just described 2 RPG variants compute rpgs and traddition table top games. I still think there is space in a computer RPG for it to be an rpg and I think there could well be a sucessful table top variant that was GM-less.
Halfjack, what is your wargame experience? Chronology and rough breadth would be helpful so we can see where you're coming from.
Quote from: David R;342687No it's not.
If you do know you could be railroading but you're still playing an RPG, not a very good one, IMO, but there you go. If you don't know, you could be telling a "story" in an improv manner, making it up as you go along.
Personally, I don't care if the so-called "story" happens before, during or after. I'm not too fond of aramis's "good play results in a story" but that's another sto...tale.
Regards,
David R
Your post was a little bit incoherent here, but the important part is that I think I get what you're saying, and its wrong.
A game where the story has already been determined before hand and the characters can do nothing to affect it is not an RPG. Its a theater production.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;343066A game where the story has already been determined before hand and the characters can do nothing to affect it is not an RPG. Its a theater production.
RPGPundit
But you didn't say story, you said "set up". Knowing how a set up will turn out is a railroad but it's still an RPG. Now some games may very well be one big railroad but there are still games.
But yes, I agree with no player agency it's not an RPG. Like that chap's game,
We All Had Names. (Because you may be assuming a role but you're not playing a game)
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Halfjack;342743Sorry, HR, I was more interested in your assertion that the purpose of a wargame is *not* to wind up telling a story about a battle.
AFTER the wargame, you have the story. Agreement?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;341251A game is no longer an rpg when nobody brings any snacks.
A game stops being an RPG when someone loses an eye.
Quote from: Mythmere;343144A game stops being an RPG when someone loses an eye.
Someone ALWAYS losses an eye though!
Quote from: Mistwell;343146Someone ALWAYS losses an eye though!
That's what I always guarantee my gaming groups each session.
RPGpundit
Quote from: Mistwell;343146Someone ALWAYS losses an eye though!
You must be playing Arduin.