Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by jburneko, April 18, 2002, 05:30:42 PM
Quote from: Bob McNameeOn the plus side for me...It sounds like my Tarot Game would classify as a Role Playing Game, regardless of whether the players are playing exclusive with the protagonists or GM style with equal access for all.
Quote from: Mike HolmesAgain these people are probably representative of the sorts of people that started with RPGs and figured to hell with rules for resolution and such. Some of these people become militant in their views and would object to a reintroduction of such RPG rules. Other people start in CS and never get to RPGs, and find the notion of such rules confusing. Does that help?
Quote from: WolfenI'm curious and faintly excited to see what might happen when and if that gap disappears entirely.
Quote from: Le JoueurRather than arguing over what point of demarcation is indicated on that continuum (because it differs from individual to individual), can we at least agree that these are the only relevant factors in the differentiation?
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe point being that I'm trying to create a practical definition.
Quote from: Le JoueurUltimately, I do not think we will arrive at a single guiding principle for differentiating between collaborative storytelling and role-playing games because each of us has different standards to apply across the continuum between purely storytelling and purely gaming.
Quote from: Mike HolmesQuote from: Le JoueurRather than arguing over what point of demarcation is indicated on that continuum (because it differs from individual to individual), can we at least agree that these are the only relevant factors in the differentiation?Character association and system protection? Hmm. You make a decent argument, and these are the only topics that have come up, but I'm not sure that character association is important. And I think that it's also possible for a player in a RPG, even a classic one such as D&D to disociate from his character relatively completely. In fact Narrativist play is a disociation of interest in the character's well being to the well being of the story as it relates to the character. I don't think that the next step, complete dissociation with particular characters would be all that far off. This is what Universalis does. My continuing point is that where I see the demarcation is not so much with character as with system. Again, I think that looking at actual behavior, most CS players looking at Universalis would call it a RPG. Emphasis on the Game. Because despite a complete discociation from specific characters, it still has all sorts of rules on how players are limited in play, and what sorts of outcomes of actions are, etc.
Quote from: Mike HolmesYou have a point, Fang, but my "what's possible" was value added. I was mostly focusing on the the examples of CS players who play character associated. Who I believe are a substantial portion of the demographic, possibly even the majority (especially given the number of people who come from RPGs where its almost all of play).
Quote from: Mike HolmesFrom now on if we want to discuss the "what's possible" I suggest "System X", a theoretical system that is heavy into producing results through mechanics, but in which no character association exists. I, of course, think that such systems are eminently viable, and just haven't been looked at much.
Quote from: Mike HolmesThere is a possibility that such an activity is so new as to merit its own category I suppose. Um, Mechanical Storytelling? I just thought that such a game would fall into the RPG category as that would be the more likely market.
Quote from: Mike HolmesAre your observations based on any scientific evidence, Fang? Or just your preference to make character association the primary qualifier?
Quote1. High character association, high system interference - everybody agrees that this is RPG territory. 2. Low character association, high system interference - Fang says we can't talk about this one as nobody does it. OK. 3. Low character association, low system interference - everybody agrees that this is CS territory. 4. High character association, low system interference - so what is this?