Quote from: Armchair Gamer;980711(Personally, I'm at the point where I'm happy to leave "roleplaying games" to the immersion purists and go with 'Dramatic Adventure Game' for the more mixed ones. But I'm also ready to say that the OSR can have D&D if I'm allowed to keep the 2E fluff and settings, 4E, and a few odds and ends from BECMI. )

I think things would be a little more honest if 2d20, some flavors of xworld, Fate, etc were say marketed as Narrative Roleplaying Games, Storytelling Roleplaying Games, Roleplaying Adventure Games, or anything that would tell me just by glancing at the cover that when I played this "Roleplaying Game", by design, I would be forced to sometimes not Roleplay when I engaged with its mechanics. (I'm saying this as someone who owns a 2d20 game and does play it occasionally.)

The OSR kerfluffles, I couldn't give two shits about.  They started lying the very first day they claimed their "D&D Revival" was an "Old School Renaissance" and they've lied every day since that they've used the term.  (Yes, I'm being sarcastic and poking fun, taking the piss, etc.)

The B/X vs. AD&D, the new artguys vs. whoever is supposed to be against the new artguys, as long as the people actually making quality stuff, keep making quality stuff, let the intarwebz be the intarwebz.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;980701Um, okay; I think I get it. I'm just not familiar with what's being called 'game theory' here; I'm used to what it used to be the term for, back in the day.

Fascinating discussion. I seem to know less and less every day. I think I'm not even sure what 'trad' and 'story games' mean. 'Course, my gaming experience is so very limited, it should not be a surprise to me that this is the case.

"Theory of games" is about (according to some) how games should be designed to enhance a certain play experience, as opposed to "Game Theory" which is the root of OR that you and I know and love.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980718"Theory of games" is about (according to some) how games should be designed to enhance a certain play experience, as opposed to "Game Theory" which is the root of OR that you and I know and love.

And "story games" sort of cropped up somewhere from people who wanted games that built a story that was like a written story, and "traditional" RPGs kind of got that label because it's shorter than "not story games."

As you point out, the nomenclature is extremely sloppy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980718"Theory of games" is about (according to some) how games should be designed to enhance a certain play experience, as opposed to "Game Theory" which is the root of OR that you and I know and love.

Ah. I think I'll stay in my niche, then, doing what I do. 'Braunsteins', if that's still the term of art being used.

It's hard to figure out what to call stuff. For example, Heroquest 2e. It's kind of a story game, since character's traits are brief tags, difficulties changed based on your successes/failures, but it's really Traditional (GM is in charge of everything but your character). Fate Core, actually, is less storygamy RAW than it is in Internet discussion.

I'd actually say there's more hate for "Railroading." Both here and on RPGNet, "Railroading" seems to be the worst thing you could ever do, and any problem you have is because you're Railroading (I'm not kidding, I've posted stuff that had nothing to do with Railroading, and had people say that I needed to stop doing it). This hate is particularly odd to me because, in real life (not the Internet), I'd hazard a guess that most RPGing going on is more like a mostly-planned story with influenced-by-player-decisions-and-chance. For every 1 game of Apocalypse World I see at the game store, there are a gagillion D&D / DCC / Pathfinder / Savage Worlds games playing through adventure paths. I'm sure it is bad when the GM is extreme enough to make you window dressing in his story, but I've had a massive amount of fun playing in these kind of situations. There are entire game systems (Gumeshoe, Call of Cthulhu, The One Ring) that are kind of structured more like a mostly-planned-story. I guess the extreme version of this would be like some of the White Wolf oWoD games, where your characters could not do anything while important things happened in the world. I think this is an exception though, to most of this kind of play.

Adventure paths are played so much because people are busy, noncreative, or just plain stupid, or any combination of the above.

However, they still suck ass.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980725Adventure paths are played so much because people are busy, noncreative, or just plain stupid, or any combination of the above.

However, they still suck ass.

For what you have said to be other than a useless over-generalization you'd need a decent definition of what an adventure path is and how it is different than a mission-based adventure.

Wow, I'm stupid and uncreative. Awesome! Certainly proves my point about the crazy hate for Railroading when som guy gets super insulting with me over this.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;980724It's hard to figure out what to call stuff. For example, Heroquest 2e. It's kind of a story game, since character's traits are brief tags, difficulties changed based on your successes/failures, but it's really Traditional (GM is in charge of everything but your character). Fate Core, actually, is less storygamy RAW than it is in Internet discussion.

I'd actually say there's more hate for "Railroading." Both here and on RPGNet, "Railroading" seems to be the worst thing you could ever do, and any problem you have is because you're Railroading (I'm not kidding, I've posted stuff that had nothing to do with Railroading, and had people say that I needed to stop doing it). This hate is particularly odd to me because, in real life (not the Internet), I'd hazard a guess that most RPGing going on is more like a mostly-planned story with influenced-by-player-decisions-and-chance. For every 1 game of Apocalypse World I see at the game store, there are a gagillion D&D / DCC / Pathfinder / Savage Worlds games playing through adventure paths. I'm sure it is bad when the GM is extreme enough to make you window dressing in his story, but I've had a massive amount of fun playing in these kind of situations. There are entire game systems (Gumeshoe, Call of Cthulhu, The One Ring) that are kind of structured more like a mostly-planned-story. I guess the extreme version of this would be like some of the White Wolf oWoD games, where your characters could not do anything while important things happened in the world. I think this is an exception though, to most of this kind of play.

I agree with you completely but your points, and those similar to them, have often been the spark for the angst I eluded to. When you make statements like "RPGing going on is more like a mostly-planned story" it seems to really antagonize those that disagree. Similarly their comments to the contrary tend to bring out the worst in those with opinions like yours. Often times they are both acting on assumptions that frankly arent the case and they often highlight their points with examples that are rare occurances or just plain ludicrous. The argument then flares out of control and leaves the reality of their differing opinions in its wake. (I gave an example once of a GMs description to the players while they were traveling down a country road. Somebody actually started up an argument about the accuracy of the description regarding real world topography etc. I argued right back and both of us seemed to lose the fact that we were talking about colorful descriptions, not geography!) The same thing happens in the discussions regarding GM style as well. So often both sides go off on argumentative tangents that have nothing to do with any of the participant's actual games.

Where the issue truly gets clouded I believe is when the comments made are delivered with a certain finality, declarations rather than opinions.
If you do this or you do that "IT ISNT ROLEPLAYING BY GOD! YOU MAY AS WELL GO WRITE A BOOK!" or "DONT FOOL YOURSELF, ITS A GAME! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FULL IMMERSION - AS SOON AS YOU ROLL THE DICE YOU HAVE LOST IT!"

These kinds of statements would be so much more effective if worded as a polite opinion and the absolutes were avoided. "I dont particularly like it when the GM does" such in such - is fine. "ANY GM THAT DOES THAT SUCKS!" only antagonizes and adds little to the discussion.

Quote from: Bren;980730For what you have said to be other than a useless over-generalization you'd need a decent definition of what an adventure path is and how it is different than a mission-based adventure.

Well, at least as Pathfinder uses the term, it is a long series of adventures tied loosely together with no real choice on how things go.  "You WILL do this, and then you WILL do that."  The first one I played through, the only interesting bit was when we accidentally stumbled into an encounter considerably before we were "supposed" to.

Of course, I personally think that modules were the worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so that is the background radiation of my opinion.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980725Adventure paths are played so much because people are busy, noncreative, or just plain stupid, or any combination of the above.

However, they still suck ass.

You made my point Gronan. There really doesnt seem to be a need for your generalization of gamer attributes or a personal declaration of what Adventure paths do. By your choice of words it appears that you have a real personal grudge against them and anyone who uses them, which is probably not the case (hopefully) but is bound to trigger negative feedback.

What is wrong with "Adventure paths are probably really useful for GMs without the time to make up their own adventures but personally I find them too constraining and linear for my tastes as GM or Player"?

Quote from: rgrove0172;980737You made my point Gronan. There really doesnt seem to be a need for your generalization of gamer attributes or a personal declaration of what Adventure paths do. By your choice of words it appears that you have a real personal grudge against them and anyone who uses them, which is probably not the case (hopefully) but is bound to trigger negative feedback.

As I said above, I think modules were the worst thing to ever happen to D&D.

Few people share this opinion, I realize, but I still hold to it.

And yeah, I did shit on this thread.  Sorry.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980738As I said above, I think modules were the worst thing to ever happen to D&D.

Few people share this opinion, I realize, but I still hold to it.

And yeah, I did shit on this thread.  Sorry.

Cool, could be you just added a great deal (more than shit too!)  You reacted emotionally to a 'pet peeve' and commented instinctively. Thats probably what a lot of members do - they respond instantly and in the heat of the moment may not represent themselves in the same way than had they considered the thread a little longer. I know Ive done it many times, flown off the handle and made some sleezy, snide remark intended not to add anything constructive to the conversation but goad somebody who just pissed in my cornflakes!  

I think this is what I was getting at with this post. Im sort of betting that the famed War everyone is talking about isnt nearly as epic as we would guess by reading through hastily structured, emotional posts.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980705For me, the exemplary 'Story Game' is something like Fiasco or Once Upon a Time, where the actual gameplay targets the development of a story as the game's primary aim. There may be aspects that allow roleplaying along the way, but in actual fact, it is possibly to play these games without roleplaying much.

A roleplaying game, on the other hand has it's primary aim of playing the role of somebody in a fictionalised or virtual setting. It too can generate a story as a by product, but the degree in which this is important (which can vary from one game to another) is still secondary to the primary aim of simply interacting with the setting via a role you play.  

The notion of power structures within each game set up - as in collaborative design of a setting or shared responsibility for refereeing during the course of a game - are common features to both, but not definitive of one category or another.

So, Fiasco is a story-game which allows players opportunities to roleplay, and FATE is a roleplaying game with storytelling ambitions. That's the difference.

I agree completely and think that you actually use a game as an example helps tremendously in clarifying what we're talking about. Some definition of terms and real examples would make all the difference in these discussions and help slow their slide into rhetoric and generalization.