New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 294
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    A few quick replies:

    Quote Originally Posted by KillianHawkeye View Post
    Why?

    No really, why is that a requirement?

    Literally no RPG I've ever played has strictly met this requirement.

    And what do you actually mean by "suitability"? Just say that you don't like it. That's fine. But you have no authority whatsoever to claim what is suitable for other people to do.

    I'm not sure why you spend so much time and energy hating on D&D 4e, or why 4e is so important to you, but gatekeeping fantasy gaming hobbies is nothing but a waste of everyone's time.



    Since your definition seems to be designed specifically to exclude 4e rather than for any kind of general use, it's nonsensical at best and academically dishonest at worst.
    If my definition seems designed to exclude 4e, that doesn't speak well for 4e's chances of being an RPG, or of the location of the line being anything but apt.

    But are you seriously asking why role-playing should be a requirement for an RPG?

    Quote Originally Posted by AvatarVecna View Post
    "4e isnt an RPG because it doesnt fit my personal definition"

    This is coming from a person trying to lecture others on the definition of "objective".
    Touché.

    The Playground has debated such definitions before, long before I evaluated 4e; it's clearly contentious how such words should be defined. I'm explaining, when I say, "4e is not an RPG", exactly what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowSandbag View Post
    If we are going down that route I have a question.
    Would you accept the following?

    "Quertus' definition, conclusion and general view on what is or is not an RPG is objectively, factually wrong."

    This is based on my definition of such, and anyone using my definition would reach the same conclusion with no room for error.
    Citation needed. I explained *my* definition.

    As ever, I enjoy being wrong, as it gives me the opportunity for self improvement. So, yes, by all means, prove me wrong if I'm wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lacco View Post
    By your own definition, which game allowed you best to roleplay this side of your character...?
    Interesting question. Probably the wrong question - the right question is probably, "which systems *don't* allow me to roleplay that side of the character".

    But, to answer your question… Quertus constantly takes notes on, makes sketches of, takes pictures of, scientifically and magically evaluates most anything "new". Systems that attempt to abstract his understanding into knowledge checks are suboptimal. But role-playing specifically the "dry author" portion? Honestly, I suspect Fate might be best suited to give it "teeth", but I've never really noticed having problems with role-playing that particular aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lacco View Post
    If that happens often, then you should consider a different choice of words, argumentation, etc. Or even the stance you take: see JNAProduction's reply and your response to them. You may think you are stating everything in clear and concise way, but the reader may get a completely different information than your original intent was.
    I'll readily admit that my player dumped Charisma, and I'm not good at expressing myself. I have no delusions that I'm expressing myself clearly. So I'm lowering the DC of the check by trying to explain an easier model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lacco View Post
    Also, not touching the "4e is not a roleplaying game". Didn't play it, don't care for it. However, the sentence is only your subjective statement, based on your subjective definition. Whether you view it as objective based on your (subjective) perceptions and knowledge, does not make it objective.
    Eh, I don't think that that's how "subjective" works. My definition may be arbitrary, or wrong, or personal, but neither it nor its evaluation should be "subjective". To label it so is imprecise at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lacco View Post
    However, if one accepts your definition, then neither 4e, nor 3.5 are roleplaying games. And neither are most of versions of D&D that I have seen/read/participated in.
    Interesting. How do you conclude this? I'd like to fix my expression of my definition, or your understanding of it, or my understanding of the universe, as appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    There's something to the OP, but the edition war stuff and binary absolutes are obscuring it.

    Rather than 'X is/is not an RPG', imagine taking a system and creating a setting for it in which all of the rules known and visible to the players are known and visible in character. Compare that setting with the setting presented by descriptive text accompanying the rules.

    Desiring to minimize that gap is a reasonable design goal. Prioritizing games in which that gap is smaller is a reasonable preference to have. And that gap is something about which at least some agreement should be possible, though I won't call it objective.

    The 'gap>0.3, not an RPG' bit is the arbitrary, subjective assertion added that is setting off a lot of posters.
    Choosing where to draw the line *may* be arbitrary, but it's hard to discuss that until people understand what the line is, no?

    Your take is interesting - comparing the settings rather than the actions. As I was trying to define role-playing, I thought of it in terms of measuring the results of the actions, but I suppose yours is yet a third valid metric, the gap between the two settings.

    I'm not sure if the objectivity of the gap is as much an issue as simply how to measure it in the first place.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Jan 2021

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by MoiMagnus View Post
    Skill challenge is not that hard as IME the work is done by the GM. Here is how I've played them (not sure if they match precisely the guidelines, hum I mean the rules):

    The GM describe a situation that has a reasonably clear objective and ask "what do you do?". Peoples say what they want to do, which get converted into a skill check.

    Either the action is secondary, and the success/failure of the check only grant bonus/penalty to following checks (and consume some time if that's relevant to the check), and possibly long term consequences.

    Or the action is directly linked to the objective, and each success/failure gets some narration from the GM on how the situation changed. After multiple failures on important checks (usually 3), the narration from the GM naturally results in the situation degenerating at our disadvantage forcing us to give up the objective. After enough successes (depending on the complexity of the task), the narration from the GM naturally lead to the objective being reached.

    So from an IC perspective, it's just "what can I do to be useful in the current situation?" and "if I have a good idea but I know I'm not good at executing it, I share it with someone more competent that me".

    IMO, skill challenges are a very advanced version of railroading, where contrary to regular railroading, the players are given a significant amount of decision-making (and at least two different outcomes), but the GM is still supposed to control the flow of the game quite strictly.
    But, but... if you put it like that, that sounds an awful lot like what happens in most games! Which can't possibly be true, because I've been told they are bad, dumb and bad!

    Granted, I haven't used a skill challenge in a while, as I put problems in place that can reasonably be solved with one skill check, but for scenes with clear goals that would require a bit more teamwork/running around panicking, it's a decent way to make it happen.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    If my definition seems designed to exclude 4e, that doesn't speak well for 4e's chances of being an RPG, or of the location of the line being anything but apt.

    But are you seriously asking why role-playing should be a requirement for an RPG?
    You didn't say "One needs to be able to roleplay in an RPG." Or at least, not where Killian was responding.

    You said:

    I’m claiming that, to measure a game’s suitability to be played as an RPG, one must play all the “character choices” minigames - including the “abstract strategy game” - in roleplaying stance, and measure how the rules rate your performance compared to someone just playing the rules.
    As-in, every last bit of the game should be done as roleplaying.

    4E doesn't qualify for that. Neither does 5E. Or 3.P. Or Mutants and Masterminds. Or Masks. Or GURPS. Or any RPG I can think of. If nothing else, session zero (which is an important part of many good games) is incredibly difficult to be roleplaying as a character, because that's the session where you nail down your character concept.

    And for someone who claims to love to be wrong, you sure as heck don't seem willing to accept being wrong.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Well, I suppose it was either this or everyone deciding this was not worthy of reply and silence resulting.

    But yeah, I have forwarded most of these arguments at one point or another in the threads that this topic has crept across several different threads. I don't think that we have covered "That's not how definitions work."/why should I use that definition, nor why are you doing this, but we have hit most of the issues with the definition itself.

    So instead I'm going to ask: What do we have to do to show you that this definition isn't what you think it is? (Whatever that turns out meaning.)

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by AvatarVecna View Post
    This is exceptionally silly to me because skill challenges are basically freeform roleplaying. "Alright guys, you're characters in the world and you're good at only certain things. Here's the task set out for you: how will you use your abilities to contribute?" And then you get to just make **** up. The DM can assign example ways to use skills, but I've never seen a DM just categorically turn down skill use suggestions like "nope, I didnt think of it before session so that's illegal".
    I've seen a 4e DM turn down "off" skills in their skill challenges. And skill challenges were pretty much the definition of "not freeform rp" in the first few iterations. Everyone participates, there's effectively an initative score, you have to use the "skill check" widget on the character sheet instead of casting a spell or using equipment. Not exactly freeform. Although the 3e skill challenges from the UA worked decently.

    Anyways, I think that 4e having something like the same fiction/mechanics ratio as Talisman or Necromundia and actively being designed to disassociate the mechanics from the fluff probably does hurt a lot of people's ability to rp in the edition. Most other rpgs you can read the setting fluff, conceive a character*, then build out something resembling the character without too much issue. 4e seems determined to make you build the character mechanics first then post hoc some fluff on it.

    *a real character like "over educated child of a wealthy merchant runs off to join a mercenary company and eventually ends up with some adventurers", not "big sword fighter with meaningless backstory that gives +2 to a weak skill".

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Choosing where to draw the line *may* be arbitrary, but it's hard to discuss that until people understand what the line is, no?

    Your take is interesting - comparing the settings rather than the actions. As I was trying to define role-playing, I thought of it in terms of measuring the results of the actions, but I suppose yours is yet a third valid metric, the gap between the two settings.

    I'm not sure if the objectivity of the gap is as much an issue as simply how to measure it in the first place.
    So that entire thing about 'what is the line?' or 'where is the line?' I think is basically a waste to discuss. That is to say, determining whether or not something is an RPG (by some definition) is kind of meaningless. You aren't really going to make difference choices about what to play on the basis of that, and binary Y/N determinations aren't useful for design or running games. Pretty much the only thing it can do is to exclude someone from being able to talk about a thing in a place which is limited by topic. So it's no surprised that 4e players feel attacked - the only really actionable thing arising from this particular approach is to effectively say 'your thing doesn't belong here'. What else are you actually going to do with the conclusion?

    Now, pinpointing something which varies by degree and which can influence immersion? That you can use to drive design. Because you let it vary by degree, you can ask for example 'okay, I like 3.5e, 4e moved in a direction that made this thing worse for me, is there a way to start at 3e but make this thing even better in that way?'

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by MoiMagnus View Post
    So from an IC perspective, it's just "what can I do to be useful in the current situation?" and "if I have a good idea but I know I'm not good at executing it, I share it with someone more competent that me".
    Have you ever watched children attempt to make sandwiches? Many of their attempts could easily be modeled by "3 failed rolls, and the process is declared a failure". Granted, sometimes, you get a single epic fail to ruin the sandwich singlehandedly; other times, 6 failures later and the child struggles on (from lesser failures, lower quality bar, stubbornness, or the rare ability to correct mistakes).

    Point is, we allow and encourage the least skilled to take actions. That's how we learn. (And other reasons). Changing this underlying fiction requires phenomenal amounts of corresponding world-building.

    But, yes, if I came from a world where only the best sandwich maker was allowed to make the attempt, where only one person in any community was allowed to practice and build the skills for any given task, I would indeed have a mindset suitable for playing 4e.

    "Like this world, unless noted otherwise". A system can crib from reality. Systems can also crib from Legacy - "like older editions unless noted otherwise". But this requisite mindset is completely novel. Does 4e anywhere explain this fiction, that PCs should always seek out their betters? Does it do the required world-building, where every community knows who has sole ownership of each role? Or does it just pretend like everything's normal, and leave it to the players to create such a fiction, or to just play the rules?

    Still, I gotta admit, that's a pretty good heuristic - not just for 4e, but IRL, too. Could you imagine if I got someone good at writing and expression to write my posts for me? Could you imagine how much better things would be, how much clearer and higher quality my posts would be? If all the idiots on the roads got someone else to drive them instead? I'm thinking this has utopia potential here, like I really ought to go home and rethink my life. That's… a bit higher of a bar than I was expecting people to aim for!

    Am I missing something, or would this not be a superior way for people to live?

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Point is, we allow and encourage the least skilled to take actions. That's how we learn. (And other reasons). Changing this underlying fiction requires phenomenal amounts of corresponding world-building.
    Every edition of Dungeons & Dragons that I know of has characters get better at skills through generic "overcoming challenges" or whatever rather than practicing the specific skills improved. At best, this is handwaved with offscreen "training". Is that any less workable in 4E?
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Devils_Advocate View Post
    Every edition of Dungeons & Dragons that I know of has characters get better at skills through generic "overcoming challenges" or whatever rather than practicing the specific skills improved. At best, this is handwaved with offscreen "training". Is that any less workable in 4E?
    Also, generally a skill challenge is when it's very important to succeed.

    By all means, let the novice try their hand at a basic task when it's routine. You can't learn to fly a plane without lots of practice, for example. But if you're doing a Blue Angels stunt routine, you do NOT send the novice up there.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    If you look at historical wargames, which use historical facts and outcomes to determine if a ruleset is realistic, then the case is clearer than a fantasy RPG than whether the rules match the fiction.

    For example DBM was the standard rules for ancient era wargames for a long time. Yet by the mathematics of the game the Romans were better off sending their Legionnaires into the woods to fight the Gauls and engage the Gauls in open fields with the Auxilia. Not only was this “non-historical” it is “anti-historical”. In historical wargames Romans -v- Gauls is the equivalent of Elves -v- Orcs in fantasy, so it is a core concept, not an edge case. This was far from the only case where the rules were counter to historical fact.

    Why did historical wargamers accept DBM as the standard when it plainly struggled to be historical? Firstly DBM is a very good game Secondly the rules were developed to accommodate any pre-gunpowder army so players accepted the inevitable discrepancies as a consequence of using such a broad brush. Being roughly right 80% of the time allowed a very wide player base. Tightening the rules to more specific periods/armies would allow more historically accurate outcomes, but fewer players are interested in any smaller slice.

    Players accepted DBM as a game, but if you got invested in historical accuracy you searched for an alternative. Tying back to the OP, the player base in 4e rejected the game because the advantages (good game system, wide player base) were outweighed by the disadvantage of the rules not reflecting the well established fiction of D&D.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    I am sympathetic to how Quertus wants to define "role-playing game". I think his definition is a good first try at defining (one aspect of) what makes a game good in my estimation.

    This is not, however, how the phrase "role-playing game" is actually used in ordinary English language.

    The first line of the Wikipedia article on rpgs is: "A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game; abbreviated RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting." This is how the phrase is actually used.

    In 4e, players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. It is therefore a role-playing game.

    Quertus can use his own definition if he likes. He can use "role-playing game" to mean only those games of playing roles that play the way he thinks they should be played.

    But he won't communicate with anybody that way.

    Please understand we are not disagreeing about 4e, and we are not disagreeing about what makes a fun rpg.

    We only disagree on what the phrase "role-playing game" means.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    .
    Listen carefully: I’m claiming that, to measure a game’s suitability to be played as an RPG, one must play all the “character choices” minigames - including the “abstract strategy game” - in roleplaying stance, and measure how the rules rate your performance compared to someone just playing the rules.
    You underlined the wrong part. You should've underlined "all". Because that's the actual operative word.

    Listen carefully: almost nobody plays roleplaying games that consistently. It's normal for players to think of a game's rules and slip in and out of character. Heavily abstracted rules aren't even necessary for this to happen - just the common question "but is this decision fun?" breaks in-character thinking and moves to a metagame level of considering your own and other people's motivations and opinions.

    So the test can be done, but since we can't expect for real played games to pass that bar, it doesn't make sense to use it as binary dividing line for what is or isn't a roleplaying game. A game that establishes roleplaying as its main focus but sometimes requires players to take out-of-character actions, is still a roleplaying game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    That said, your “ It also has bunch of decisions that don't make sense from the viewpoint of any character, ” sounds like my “if it forces you out of roleplaying stance to play the game, it’s not (suited to being played as) an RPG”. So it sounds to me like you already acknowledge that 4e is not an RPG, by my definition. Am I wrong?
    You're still tripping over the same fallacy.

    Again: 4th edition has all the necessary parts to qualify as a roleplaying game. It has characters, it has staged situations, it asks the players to assume viewpoints of their characters and decide what to do, how, and why. That it also has parts which don't make sense from a character's viewpoint doesn't nullify that observation.

    Again: a sane version of your argument skips the purposeless semantic argument and just uses the non-roleplaying elementa of 4th edition D&D to argue that it's a poor roleplaying game. You still don't need to argue about "what is art?" if you can make your point by saying something is BAD art.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Anonymouswizard's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In my library

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Not that I’ll deny being an elitist, I’m just trying to get people to understand my terms and my PoV.
    If it's not happened by now then maybe, just maybe, people are just legitimately disagreeing with you?

    By all means, hand me the fiction you use to make decisions in character, and we can evaluate it. Strongly agree on the astoundingly boneheaded nature of the “limiter” - that by itself is really hard to create fiction for.
    It boils down to 'you have to do X, there's a ticking clock, and multiple characters can meaningfully contribute'. It's an abstraction layer meant to handling the game easier.

    To give a specific example, the party is locked in a farm shed sheltering from the ravenous horde of zombies outside. They know the zombies will break down the door eventually, and decide to break open their toolkits and turn the tractor into a heavily armoured battle tractor. Each character could work on various aspects, but unless they get enough rolls before the zombies get in all they'll have is a bunch of tractor components.

    (Other ideas include: finding a treasure before somebody else, reversing the cultists' ritual before the gribbly demon things come through, or to use an example the book does a chase through crowded city streets).

    I don’t know that game, sorry.

    The only reason I cared in the first place was because people kept saying, “4e is not D&D”; now, I care because people don’t understand what I’m saying… and it’s a running gag for me to deride 4e, now with the (true) phrase, “4e is not an RPG”.

    Ok, fine, the mostly true phrase. It’s an abstraction for the actual truth, that 4e is significantly less suited to being played as an RPG than other games marketed as RPGs I remember (darn senility), and 4e fails to pass my arguably arbitrary line for is / is not an RPG”. Of course, people will need to understand my stance before we can even begin discussing whether or the extent to which where I draw the line is arbitrary.
    HeroQuest is a simple dungeon crawling board game released by Milton Bradley and Games Workshop about forty years ago, with a remake dropping next month. The point is, it very easily fulfils your criteria despite being in theory even less fiction rooted than 4e is. I also really want to play it now, guess I'm dropping £100 on that remake.
    Snazzy avatar (now back! ) by Honest Tiefling.

    RIP Laser-Snail, may you live on in our hearts forever.

    Spoiler: playground quotes
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelphas View Post
    So here I am, trapped in my laboratory, trying to create a Mechabeast that's powerful enough to take down the howling horde outside my door, but also won't join them once it realizes what I've done...twentieth time's the charm, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    How about a Jovian Uplift stuck in a Case morph? it makes so little sense.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowSandbag View Post
    If we are going down that route I have a question.
    Would you accept the following?

    "Quertus' definition, conclusion and general view on what is or is not an RPG is objectively, factually wrong."

    This is based on my definition of such, and anyone using my definition would reach the same conclusion with no room for error.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post

    Citation needed. I explained *my* definition.

    As ever, I enjoy being wrong, as it gives me the opportunity for self improvement. So, yes, by all means, prove me wrong if I'm wrong.
    Sure, here is an easy one. "Any game that markets itself as an RPG is an RPG."

    Its a simple definition with a concrete reasoning and meaning behind it. Anyone using this would reach the conclusion that 4e is an RPG based on this definition. Therefore it is concretely, objectively, with no room for misinterpretation or doubt, an RPG. Because your definition is in conflict with mine, everything you said therefore must be objectively incorrect.

    We could even go more specific if you want and say "Any edition of D&D is an RPG". Again, anyone understanding this definition and following it to its logical conclusion would agree that, by my definition, 4e is an RPG.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    *yawn* how exciting, another hot-take on how 4E is badwrongfun.

    *checks watch* yep, it's a year that starts with a 20.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    One problem with virtually all group definitions is that they never handle edge cases well - and edge cases exist for virtually everything.
    A useful definition in this case is one where obvious cases are generally agreed on, and while edge cases may exist, and people may disagree on which side of the lines edge cases fall under, most people will agree that they are edge cases.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowSandbag View Post
    Sure, here is an easy one. "Any game that markets itself as an RPG is an RPG."
    I would go for "Any system designed to be a role-playing game is a role-playing game." Although, unless there is some active lying going on then that will probably show up in marketing.

    I go for the pure linguistic definition though of: If people usually call it a role-playing game then it is a role-playing game. However fuzzy the underlying the group actually is that gives you the best chance of using the word in a way someone will understand. Which is kind of the point.

    Oh yeah, and if you want some sort of taxidermic description of role-playing games, it should still reflect the common usage. Otherwise you are not actually defining that word, just a homonym (and there is already at least one for role-playing games already, we don't need another). And honestly, only one thing someone called a role-playing game ever made me question if it was actually a role-playing game. And it was also generally terrible and unpopular (no, 4th doesn't come even close) so I never bothered to answer the question.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    *yawn* how exciting, another hot-take on how 4E is badwrongfun.

    *checks watch* yep, it's a year that starts with a 20.
    I think you mean it's a year that matches \d* (any number of digits).
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2021

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post

    Role-playing is making decisions for the character, in character.

    This requires looking at things from the character's PoV, using the fiction, not the rules.

    How well the rules match the fiction - or, more specifically, how well one can play the game¹ knowing and utilizing only the fiction, how the rules rate one's performance when role-playing - is a simple metric for the suitability of the game to being played as an RPG.

    That's it.

    And that's why 4e is not an RPG.

    Well, mostly. I actually used a more complex metric when making that determination, one I feel has greater fidelity. But this much simpler, much more approachable metric should suffice.

    Any questions?

    ¹ "playing the game" is "making (meaningful) choices", for those not familiar with this argument.
    You're wrong. From the beginning. D&D 4e is pure RP. Yes it has many handles and codes that signify some other kind of game BUT it's STILL players roleplaying characters. Avatars of the players making in-game/fantasy decisions.

    So yeah, D&D 4e is an RPG. Despite how much you don't like it.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Well, I suppose it was either this or everyone deciding this was not worthy of reply and silence resulting.

    But yeah, I have forwarded most of these arguments at one point or another in the threads that this topic has crept across several different threads. I don't think that we have covered "That's not how definitions work."/why should I use that definition, nor why are you doing this, but we have hit most of the issues with the definition itself.

    So instead I'm going to ask: What do we have to do to show you that this definition isn't what you think it is? (Whatever that turns out meaning.)
    So much I’d like to say. But, what can I say, I’m dedicated to being able to say, “4e is not an RPG” in peace. Even if it means more posts than I can process to get there. Hmmm… As you’ve been fond of saying, “all models are wrong, only some are useful”. You’d need to demonstrate how my model isn’t useful for me to abandon it. Which, with comments that show that my model is understood to and has value to some, that prospect would be vanishingly difficult.

    So, instead, you’d need to prove some underlying fault in the logic. To do that, a good first step would be to understand my model. If I’m saying “two and two is four”, and you’re talking about “22”, you’re really not likely to say anything meaningful to me. Your model wouldn’t be useful in that context.

    Here’s an example of a good line of thought that I hadn’t considered:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    I am sympathetic to how Quertus wants to define "role-playing game". I think his definition is a good first try at defining (one aspect of) what makes a game good in my estimation.

    This is not, however, how the phrase "role-playing game" is actually used in ordinary English language.

    The first line of the Wikipedia article on rpgs is: "A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game; abbreviated RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting." This is how the phrase is actually used.

    In 4e, players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. It is therefore a role-playing game.

    Quertus can use his own definition if he likes. He can use "role-playing game" to mean only those games of playing roles that play the way he thinks they should be played.

    But he won't communicate with anybody that way.

    Please understand we are not disagreeing about 4e, and we are not disagreeing about what makes a fun rpg.

    We only disagree on what the phrase "role-playing game" means.

    I understand. Not that I’d mind if we did disagree, of course.

    If the playground all agreed on the definitions, and all used them, then we wouldn’t be here, with me explaining things in terms of my definitions. So saying, in effect, that I’ll need to communicate the meaning of my words in order to communicate my ideas is a given. And, having already evaluated what “roleplaying” and “roleplaying game” mean, I’ll not revert to an inferior definition, that uses so imprecise an implicit definition of roleplaying. Otherwise, this might be a compelling argument.

    Given this, I guess my question is, if you feel that the elements I’m discussing have value, do you disagree just on common usage of the term (which is fair in a general sense, but less so in the context of the Playground, where no such consensus exists), or do you feel that my definition isn’t actually appropriate to defining an RPG? Keeping in mind that there’s 3 components: my definition of “roleplaying”, my definition of an RPG, and my metric for measuring the suitability of a game to be played as an RPG.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You underlined the wrong part. You should've underlined "all". Because that's the actual operative word.

    Listen carefully: almost nobody plays roleplaying games that consistently. It's normal for players to think of a game's rules and slip in and out of character. Heavily abstracted rules aren't even necessary for this to happen - just the common question "but is this decision fun?" breaks in-character thinking and moves to a metagame level of considering your own and other people's motivations and opinions.
    Fully agree that most people don’t engage in pure roleplaying. In addition to the fact that a metric based on personal experience would be subjective, it’s one of the reasons why I’m firmly in the camp of discounting personal experience.

    The question I’m asking is, what rules facilitate roleplaying? Sure, Hawkman doesn’t fly all the time, but a Hurricane does not facilitate his flight, it isn’t suited to being traversed as a flying experience.

    And, I am, sadly, quite painfully aware how much better the game was before I learned the importance of such metagaming.

    So, from the metaphor, I’m measuring the RPG “weather”, not anyone’s experience with the weather. I’m measuring the temperate, not whether people feel hot or cold.

    I’m measuring the extent to which the fiction logically leads to choices that the rules expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    So the test can be done, but since we can't expect for real played games to pass that bar, it doesn't make sense to use it as binary dividing line for what is or isn't a roleplaying game. A game that establishes roleplaying as its main focus but sometimes requires players to take out-of-character actions, is still a roleplaying game.
    Again, it’s not about play experience. It’s about the math.

    Yes, you can approximate the math by handing young children with no RPG experience the fiction (and only the fiction, not the rules), and see how well the rules say that they’re playing the game. But that’ll just give you a reasonable estimate of the game’s suitability to being played as an RPG - such testing is not an exact science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You're still tripping over the same fallacy.

    Again: 4th edition has all the necessary parts to qualify as a roleplaying game. It has characters, it has staged situations, it asks the players to assume viewpoints of their characters and decide what to do, how, and why. That it also has parts which don't make sense from a character's viewpoint doesn't nullify that observation.

    Again: a sane version of your argument skips the purposeless semantic argument and just uses the non-roleplaying elementa of 4th edition D&D to argue that it's a poor roleplaying game. You still don't need to argue about "what is art?" if you can make your point by saying something is BAD art.
    Not by my definitions. Nor by yours, actually, as my point is that 4e demands that you abandon the character perspective in order to play the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    If it's not happened by now then maybe, just maybe, people are just legitimately disagreeing with you?
    To be legitimately disagreeing, first, they must understand what I’m saying. That’s the step that has noticeably changed with my transition to the simpler model. My communication skills aren’t up for the higher DC, it seems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    It boils down to 'you have to do X, there's a ticking clock, and multiple characters can meaningfully contribute'. It's an abstraction layer meant to handling the game easier.

    To give a specific example, the party is locked in a farm shed sheltering from the ravenous horde of zombies outside. They know the zombies will break down the door eventually, and decide to break open their toolkits and turn the tractor into a heavily armoured battle tractor. Each character could work on various aspects, but unless they get enough rolls before the zombies get in all they'll have is a bunch of tractor components.

    (Other ideas include: finding a treasure before somebody else, reversing the cultists' ritual before the gribbly demon things come through, or to use an example the book does a chase through crowded city streets).
    A ticking clock could encourage people to prioritize *quick* actions / tests over one’s likely to succeed. So, before you even get to make your first roll, I’ve accumulated 3 quick failures, and the skill challenge fails.

    I don’t think that that fiction produces the results that the game expects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    HeroQuest is a simple dungeon crawling board game released by Milton Bradley and Games Workshop about forty years ago, with a remake dropping next month. The point is, it very easily fulfils your criteria despite being in theory even less fiction rooted than 4e is. I also really want to play it now, guess I'm dropping £100 on that remake.
    Anything like … name … Talisman?

    I’d say that, like 4e, Talisman lacks an actionable fiction. If they had such, they could be played as an RPG.

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    So that entire thing about 'what is the line?' or 'where is the line?' I think is basically a waste to discuss. That is to say, determining whether or not something is an RPG (by some definition) is kind of meaningless. You aren't really going to make difference choices about what to play on the basis of that, and binary Y/N determinations aren't useful for design or running games. Pretty much the only thing it can do is to exclude someone from being able to talk about a thing in a place which is limited by topic. So it's no surprised that 4e players feel attacked - the only really actionable thing arising from this particular approach is to effectively say 'your thing doesn't belong here'. What else are you actually going to do with the conclusion?

    Now, pinpointing something which varies by degree and which can influence immersion? That you can use to drive design. Because you let it vary by degree, you can ask for example 'okay, I like 3.5e, 4e moved in a direction that made this thing worse for me, is there a way to start at 3e but make this thing even better in that way?'
    I’m torn. I mean, if someone was making an argument predicated upon a false premise, like responding to “women are sexy when they use whips” with “Indiana Jones wasn’t whip sexy”, I’d like to be able to point out the logical flaw that “Indiana Jones wasn’t a woman”. Otoh, 4e has plenty of elements that could have been valuable in an RPG, and people discounting them just because they were used in something that isn’t an RPG is something the likes of which I’ve seen happen on the Playground.

    So I guess I agree that handing the Playground a means to determine something’s “RPG status” isn’t necessarily valuable, except to allow me to continue my meme. Which, as that and being misunderstood are the only reasons I’m bothering to try to explain it (because I honestly don’t care)… the step of explaining the spectrum, fixing anything wrong or missing from my model, and then just saying my “4e isn’t D&D” meme is my own arbitrary point of that spectrum would be fine by me.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Obviously you can't respond to everyone all the time, but I would be interested in your thoughts on my earlier response when you have the time to respond.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So much I'd like to say. But, what can I say, I'm dedicated to being able to say, "4e is not an RPG" in peace.
    Give up right now. You will never be able to convince enough people that you can say that without being attacked. I've been working with you a while and I still don't get exactly what is going on. Or maybe I do? Point is, I'm still working though it, and even if it clicks next post, can you do that with everybody?

    As you've been fond of saying, "all models are wrong, only some are useful". You'd need to demonstrate how my model isn't useful for me to abandon it. Which, with comments that show that my model is understood to and has value to some, that prospect would be vanishingly difficult.
    I have three arguments:
    • Everyone has pretty much given flat agreement or flat disagreement. No one seems to have actually gained anything about it.
    • The couple of people who might have actually dug deep enough to use the model got different results than you. Considering that these people are some of the ones that have spent the most time engaged with the topic, it calls into question the people who have shown up and agreed with you quickly. Which is a side note which, either you still aren't getting the model across or you are using it wrong yourself.
    • How is branding about "4e is not a role-playing game" because you don't like it useful? Even if you can describe why you don't like it?

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorthindel View Post
    I think, if any justification on this is to hold, there needs to be an answer to "well, what is it then?"

    I say that, because personally I would find it would be easier to justify the statement "4th ed is a board game" than it is the statement "4th ed isn't a roleplay game", despite the (hopefully not too controvertial statement) that the two things are seperate entities, and a game theoretically can't be both (though that is not a guaranteed statement).

    Rather than working on a single exclusionary category, maybe firming up the categories (say between: wargame, boardgame, roleplay game, playing make-believe) and then that might more easily see where something has drifted into a different category than it perhaps had originally intended to be.
    Ice cream Isn’t a vegetable. Even if I cannot clarify what it is, even with a partial definition of “vegetables come from plants”, I can tell you what it isn’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by LecternOfJasper View Post
    Fun!
    I’m glad you think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by LecternOfJasper View Post

    Alright, so far:

    "Role-playing is making decisions for the character, in character." - I have no reason to disagree with this statement, though as another has posted there are certain aspects of roleplaying games that do not involve or lessen the importance of role-playing (character creation being the clear one, solving OOC issues and maintaining fun for everyone involved being another).
    Agreed. Having discussed this in so many threads while falling to communicate the complex version, I forgot to include such criteria. I’ll try and remember to update the OP (darn senility).

    Quote Originally Posted by LecternOfJasper View Post
    "This requires looking at things from the character's PoV, using the fiction, not the rules." - Sure, but it has been pointed out that the rules and the fiction ought to be consistent already. If they do not line up, that's either a problem with how the fiction and rules have been built, or how the fiction and rules are being interpreted by other people. I see this has been addressed:



    The 4e players handbook, as I found out in the last 10 minutes, specifies that the Martial power source often contains feats beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals, and describes them as "not magic in the traditional sense."

    I take this to mean that anything that is clearly beyond the capabilities of a warrior in the established setting to be tapping into nontraditional magic. Because it says so.

    It also, when describing daily powers, as that is probably the main issue here (?), the good book claims that martial characters are reaching into their deepest reserves to pull off an exploit. While I agree that on its face, it seems a little silly to have a meat man only able to meat a particular way once a day. If it is, as they say on the same page, nontraditional magic though, then there's no reason to believe that it will work any differently than other types of magic in the same world. (Which appears to be the old "hold the ability in your head tenuously, and need good amount of rest to grab a hold of it again" maneuver.)
    That fiction a) ships with 4e, b) accesses valid legacy code; c) allows one to play the game in roleplaying stance in a way that matches the rules. If those 3 statements are true, then unless anyone disagrees, I’m willing to concede the “muggle daily abilities” issue in the general case (but note that there were other examples which, if they are actual 4e daily abilities rather than just examples (to which I confess ignorance), those specific examples would not be covered).

    Quote Originally Posted by LecternOfJasper View Post
    "How well the rules match the fiction - or, more specifically, how well one can play the game knowing and utilizing only the fiction, how the rules rate one's performance when role-playing - is a simple metric for the suitability of the game to being played as an RPG." -

    Based on the fiction as laid out in the book - that martial characters are dubiously magical and commit superhuman exploits through the use of, er, magic - I think that the rules match the fiction pretty well. If characters are going through the world thinking "I've attained access to these abilities through honing my craft to the point of mastery, but attempting them hurts my head to the point where I can only try again tomorrow," then that qualifies as a win. If their thought process is anything else (head hurting not withstanding), the character doesn't understand their own abilities very well, or the player doesn't understand the fiction as is.
    Well, your clarification may make me backpedal slightly.

    Because “now I’ve got a headache” may make me expect that I *can* still perform the action, just not as well. Or that I can take medicine, then keep performing the action. The exact fiction you tell the players will affect how they could legitimately play the game. So, exactly which fiction ships with 4e?

    Quote Originally Posted by LecternOfJasper View Post
    I know I have made a lot of assumptions here based on what the actual problem is, but it is necessary to find the specifics of the fiction and rules when trying to argue that the fiction conflicts with the rules.

    About playing the game knowing and utilizing only the fiction - can you point to a specific example of where the fiction does not line up with the rules? I would love to discuss the details and make a case for this, as I have seen this topic come up way too often in the last month.

    The few things I've looked at so far seem to indicate that the fiction is just as specific as the rules, as they had probably written the fiction in a particular way in order to justify the rules. Go figure.
    Well, you’ve done an absolutely amazing job so far. I, regrettably, am in a near-permanent “AFB” state, but… the fiction of how skills work that makes skill challenges something that can be passed while roleplaying, and most recently, Talakeal brought up the question of how one would know IC that attacking a marked foe would be tactically disadvantageous, if you’re interested in tackling either of those issues.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    No one is claiming ice cream is a vegetable, though. Common usage of vegetable as a word doesn’t include ice cream.

    Common usage of RPG as a phrase includes 4E. It might not be well-liked as an RPG, but you are the only person I’ve ever met who claimed it’s not an RPG.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    I am sympathetic to how Quertus wants to define "role-playing game". I think his definition is a good first try at defining (one aspect of) what makes a game good in my estimation.

    This is not, however, how the phrase "role-playing game" is actually used in ordinary English language.

    The first line of the Wikipedia article on rpgs is: "A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game; abbreviated RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting." This is how the phrase is actually used.

    In 4e, players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. It is therefore a role-playing game.


    Quertus can use his own definition if he likes. He can use "role-playing game" to mean only those games of playing roles that play the way he thinks they should be played.

    But he won't communicate with anybody that way.

    Please understand we are not disagreeing about 4e, and we are not disagreeing about what makes a fun rpg.

    We only disagree on what the phrase "role-playing game" means.
    Re the bolded.
    What I read Quertus as saying is that in 4e D&D the players are not assuming the role of the character in the fictional setting.
    Because the rules and fiction are misaligned they are not making decisions that the character would make based on the fiction. They are making decisions for the character based on the rules. Essentially saying that 4e plays like a skirmish wargame where the player controls an individual figure, but does not assume the persona of the character.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Most other rpgs you can read the setting fluff, conceive a character*, then build out something resembling the character without too much issue. 4e seems determined to make you build the character mechanics first then post hoc some fluff on it.

    *a real character like "over educated child of a wealthy merchant runs off to join a mercenary company and eventually ends up with some adventurers", not "big sword fighter with meaningless backstory that gives +2 to a weak skill".
    Um ... what?
    That's either not remotely true about "most other RPGs" (if you mean "make a mechanically effective character") or it's true about all of them and 4E as well (if you mean "make a character at all, doesn't matter if it's really weak").

    It's sure as hell not the case in 3.x, for example. I like 3.x char-gen, but I have to admit that if you pick things by name / implied flavor primarily, you could easily end up with a mechanically-weak character who can't do many of the things you'd want them to. Which is honestly true about a lot of TTRPGs, and even those which are more friendly to that approach still often have some things you need to know for good results.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2021-12-24 at 10:22 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    I've seen a 4e DM turn down "off" skills in their skill challenges. And skill challenges were pretty much the definition of "not freeform rp" in the first few iterations. Everyone participates, there's effectively an initative score, you have to use the "skill check" widget on the character sheet instead of casting a spell or using equipment. Not exactly freeform. Although the 3e skill challenges from the UA worked decently.

    Anyways, I think that 4e having something like the same fiction/mechanics ratio as Talisman or Necromundia and actively being designed to disassociate the mechanics from the fluff probably does hurt a lot of people's ability to rp in the edition. Most other rpgs you can read the setting fluff, conceive a character*, then build out something resembling the character without too much issue. 4e seems determined to make you build the character mechanics first then post hoc some fluff on it.

    *a real character like "over educated child of a wealthy merchant runs off to join a mercenary company and eventually ends up with some adventurers", not "big sword fighter with meaningless backstory that gives +2 to a weak skill".
    Also, to harp on this a bit...

    That's a backstory that could be, in 5E, literally any class. You'd likely be a noble or guild merchant for your background... But you could pick just about any mechanics to go with it.

    The backstory's only meaningless if the DM lets it be-which can happen in 4E, but can happen in 3.P, or 5th, or GURPS, or M&M, or any RPG ever.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Plants, fungi and bacteria aren't living beings.

    My definition of living beings means "creature who can think". Therefore, by my definition, plants, fungi and bacteria aren't living beings.

    The fact that by my definition, my initial statement is correct is a factual truth.

    But... What's the point?

    It's not a definition that is or will ever be accepted or used by anyone. It doesn't offer any innovative or useful perspective or insight either. All it does is allow me to reinstate my claim and be technically correct within a very narrow, very limited frame of reference of my own making because I really dislike fungi.

    It's completely pointless.
    Last edited by Lemmy; 2021-12-25 at 12:06 AM.
    Homebrew Stuff:

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    Also, to harp on this a bit...

    That's a backstory that could be, in 5E, literally any class. You'd likely be a noble or guild merchant for your background... But you could pick just about any mechanics to go with it.

    The backstory's only meaningless if the DM lets it be-which can happen in 4E, but can happen in 3.P, or 5th, or GURPS, or M&M, or any RPG ever.
    As I said "a real character...
    ... not "big sword fighter with meaningless backstory that gives +2 to a weak skill"

    You sort of made my point. A character's background can be reflected in their skill & abilities, can be part of the actual rules & widgets on the character sheet, or something the DM has to use fiat above & beyond the rules to make it relevant. Your M&M or 3.x character can have actual rules based effects of being well educated or socially well connected, it doesn't have to be 100% DM fiat to have any meaning. D&D 5e can almost do it, but 4e didn't.

    And of course that wasn't the main point of the half post (I haven't gotten to finish anything more than a 3 sentence post in a couple days now). The point is that 4e was a "mechanics first, fiction second" design with intentionally disassociated mechanics. Which may be part of its violation of Quertus (somewhat vague & ill defined to me) definition of "rpg". I can see where Quertus is coming from, things like making a running leap to swing a sword at a flying harpy gave our group hard stop problems untill we did a gentleman's agreement never to do flying & other z-axis combats. For Quertus the fiction of things like a 7' tall goliath with a 6' long sword making a leaping attack at a low flying enemy needs to be, if not supported, then at least not hard shut down by the rule set and requiring DM breaking rules to let it work.

    Likewise, I don't think it can be convincingly argued that any definition of "rpg" that includes Monopoly, Talisman, or the literal D&D board games is going to be a useful or accepted definition for these purpo

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: RPG metric, simplified version

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I’m torn. I mean, if someone was making an argument predicated upon a false premise, like responding to “women are sexy when they use whips” with “Indiana Jones wasn’t whip sexy”, I’d like to be able to point out the logical flaw that “Indiana Jones wasn’t a woman”. Otoh, 4e has plenty of elements that could have been valuable in an RPG, and people discounting them just because they were used in something that isn’t an RPG is something the likes of which I’ve seen happen on the Playground.

    So I guess I agree that handing the Playground a means to determine something’s “RPG status” isn’t necessarily valuable, except to allow me to continue my meme. Which, as that and being misunderstood are the only reasons I’m bothering to try to explain it (because I honestly don’t care)… the step of explaining the spectrum, fixing anything wrong or missing from my model, and then just saying my “4e isn’t D&D” meme is my own arbitrary point of that spectrum would be fine by me.
    If it were in the context of a specific argument, it might be somewhat useful argumentation, but I think in any such case there are probably much more efficient ways to get at the point of what's being said. E.g. in the whips example, yes, you can say 'Indiana Jones wasn't a woman' to respond, but you could also say 'Indiana Jones isn't my type, whip or no'. It feels weaker since it isn't an objective argument, but its actually stronger because it recognizes that there are subjective parts of the conversation and just owns them as subjective and moves on. That way you don't get entangled arguing larger and less relevant points in order to make a focused, narrow point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •