I think I'm enjoying boardgames more than RPGs these days

[EmperorNorton]

I also think that conflating sandbox as being the only kind of RPG where you are exploring options outside of the ones the game/gm give to you is... incorrect.

I've seen a lot of creative problem-solving that you couldn't do in other mediums even in linear adventures. I've seen quite a few "challenges" that were bypassed entirely by a clever use of spells/bribery/stealth that was not what the adventure intended to be the "solution".

(There are times it can be done in video games. Usually in games that just set things up as a bit of a physics simulation then lets things go (like there are some interesting ways that are obviously unintended ways of solving some of the Breath of the Wild puzzles), but the freedom is still not the same as in an RPG).

 

[Lessa]

Yeah, but even if you can have a detour here and there, the framework of these "passive" games is predominantly linear. Following your videogame analogy, you will find different ways to do a quest here and there in Breath of the Wild but most of them will have to be made by the scripts.

And I don't think it's a matter of good or bad GMing either as I had some great GMs (one here in this very forum), but of the structures of play that each game adheres to.

Anyway, my initial reply to Tristram was just to show that these boardgames are not as single-noted as he painted. So people reading this can make their own mind based on correct info. For the rest, I think we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

[3rik]

We eventually played without Rumours. Those were fucking awful and not fun at all.

We also threw out the Rumors. I recommend doing this to everybody picking up Arkham Horror 2E.

What other boardgames evoke this roleplaying feeling for you, guys and gals?

Check out Folklore: the Affliction from Greenbrier Games. It even has character sheets.

Folklore: The Affliction – Game Publisher : Greenbrier Games
Folklore: The Affliction | Board Game | BoardGameGeek

Distressingly, many players incorrectly think that a phone is an RPG because they think they can play with it while they're supposedly roleplaying.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, but even if you can have a detour here and there, the framework of these "passive" games is predominantly linear.

An RPG is not a "passive" game by definition - it's an active, participatory hobby. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the genre, setting, or premise of the game. An RPG could be played "passively", but that goes back once again to "people who play RPGs like boardgames."

Arkham Horror is a passive game because the player does not participate in or effect the outcome of the game. In Arkham Horror - things happen to you, out of your control, and the win condition is at the mercy of random chance, it does not come from player strategy, problem or puzzle solving, or creativity. Contrast this to chess, where every decision made by the player affects the outcome of the game.

And I don't think it's a matter of good or bad GMing either as I had some great GMs (one here in this very forum), but of play structures.

The play structure in a board game or videogame is determined by the designer.

The play structure in an RPG is determined by the GM.

Yes, what I'm describing is entirely in the hands of the GM. Pretty much everything is in RPGs, even the decision of the GM to spread out GM duties to players.

 

[Lessa]

Whatever bro. We won't agree and I'm bored of this topic.

 

[TristramEvans]

Whatever bro. I'm bored of this topic.

I accept your forfeit and graciously celebrate my checkmate

 

[Magister]

An RPG is not a "passive" game by definition - it's an active, participatory hobby. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the genre, setting, or premise of the game. An RPG could be played "passively", but that goes back once again to "people who play RPGs like boardgames."

So, you claim that boardgames are inherently passive - passive RPGs are those played "like boardgames". Kind of amusing from someone who already played the strawman card, and then promptly gives an example of a boardgame (chess) which is not passive.

Arkham Horror is a passive game because the player does not participate in or effect the outcome of the game. In Arkham Horror - things happen to you, out of your control, and the win condition is at the mercy of random chance, it does not come from player strategy, problem or puzzle solving, or creativity.

I haven't played Arkham Horror, but I have played Eldritch Horror. It's true that you can't try an imaginative strategy in a particular encounter, but there's plenty of resource management and strategy needed overall. Success in RPGs is also at the mercy of random chance; you can improve your chances but nothing is guaranteed amidst saving throws and wandering monsters. And a lot of RPGs, especially those where a module is used, are not always invoking the capability to try any strategy; classic modules are full of obstacles that are artifically rigged to defeat many if not all alternatives to get past them.

(Tournament game in the 80s, we were at a door to the tower which we needed to enter, because module; we believed there was a trap, and after some consideration another player used a passwall spell to bypass it. The GM floundered, conferred with the head referee, and reported that it failed - lead sheets embedded in the tower walls prevented going through. That was the highest level spell the pregen wizard had, but by Gygax you had to go through the trap on the door.)

 

[TristramEvans]

So, you claim that boardgames are inherently passive

No, hence my counter example of chess.

 

[Bunch]

I accept your forfeit and graciously celebrate my checkmate

I have no interest in the topic or argument other than I love that I live in a time where this animated bit of awesome can show up on my screen.

But I don't think it helps the civility of the conversation.

 

[TristramEvans]

I have no interest in the topic or argument other than I love that I live in a time where this animated bit of awesome can show up on my screen.

But I don't think it helps the civility of the conversation.

I consider it a measured response to "whatever bro" after a page of strawmen, but the conversation is over.







And I won.

 

[Magister]

An RPG could be played "passively", but that goes back once again to "people who play RPGs like boardgames."

So one can deduce that playing an RPG passively is playing like a boardgame, therefore passively.

No, hence my counter example of chess.

Your two statements are not consistent.

 

[Lessa]

Can we put mods on ignore around here?

If not, could you please exit the thread and refrain to speak to me again in the future, TristramEvans ?

I gave you the chance of the doubt but after this thread and the Sex Moves one, I'm convinced your "jokes" are just veiled attempts at dimishing and hitting at things you dislike and people you don't agree with, a pattern I find particularly abhorrent and coward, and would prefer not engaging with again in the future.

 

[TristramEvans]

Can we put mods on ignore around here?

If not, could you please exit the thread and refrain to speak to me again in the future, TristramEvans ?

I gave you the chance of the doubt but after this thread and the Sex Moves one, I'm convinced your "jokes" are just veiled and cynical attempts at dimishing and hitting things you dislike and people you don't agree with.

You can feel free to not talk to me all you want.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I mean, I think there are passive board games, but they are things like Candyland.

Most modern board games have a lot of strategy, in fact, from a mechanical perspective, I think board games tend to have more strategy than most RPGs. Even stuff like Eldritch/Arkham Horror that has a lot of randomness, there is still a lot of strategic/tactical management involved and ability for the players to influence the outcome. So I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking.

The thing that gives an RPG life is the ability to go outside the mechanics and outside the situations the games design allows for.

 

[TristramEvans]

I mean, I think there are passive board games, but they are things like Candyland.

Most modern board games have a lot of strategy, in fact, from a mechanical perspective, I think board games tend to have more strategy than most RPGs. Even stuff like Eldritch/Arkham Horror that has a lot of randomness, there is still a lot of strategic/tactical management involved and ability for the players to influence the outcome. So I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking.

Sure, there's certainly a spectrum. The degree of nuance between games though is just, IMO, a different scale than that between a board game and RPGs. I'm not sure about boardgames having "more strategy", but I'm not going to disput e that, as I don't think strategy is in any way intrinsic to roleplaying.

The thing that gives an RPG life is the ability to go outside the mechanics and outside the situations the games design allows for.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[Endless Flight]

Can we put mods on ignore around here?

No.

 

[Edgewise]

But this is a passive experience. If the players don't actually solve the puzzle, if they don't actually discover and follow clues to a conclusion, they are not experiencing that thing, it's window-dressing at best.

Is this a new terminology or something already in use? Personally, I feel like it's a bit off the mark when we have "concrete" and "abstract." I would argue that one could be said to be "actively" acquiring clue tokens. I mean, I know what you're saying, and I'm not really into that, either.

"You get the whole Lovecraftian experience, every time, every game. Period."

Well, no, you don't. You get Lovecraft-flavoured icing on top of a tofu cake.

I've never gotten the whole Lovecraftian experience, and I hope that never changes. It's really a matter of degree.

Throughout this rant I may have given the impression I dislike Arkham Horror, which is far from the truth. I think it's an incredibly fun game. I just don't see it as a viable substitute for a well-run Mythos game by a GM who knows wh\at they are doing. The experience it provides is so intrinsically different, that I cannot see the analogy at all.

Totally inarguable.

I even find prepping/running linear adventures harder than sandboxes.

That's a good point! Very true. Not only do you have to design the scenario, but you have to figure out how to trick the players into doing exactly what you want.

There's lots of games that involve the player actually solving mysteries - Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective is one of my favourites.

That's a great game. One of the few boardgames that I enjoy solo.

 

[TristramEvans]

Is this a new terminology or something already in use? Personally, I feel like it's a bit off the mark when we have "concrete" and "abstract." I would argue that one could be said to be "actively" acquiring clue tokens. I mean, I know what you're saying, and I'm not really into that, either.

I'm just using the word to try and convey the distinction, I don't think it has any attachment to any RPG theory.

I've never gotten the whole Lovecraftian experience, and I hope that never changes. It's really a matter of degree.

It is rather fishy...

That's a great game. One of the few boardgames that I enjoy solo.

I wish there were new mysteries being regularly published for it.

 

[SavAce]

You can feel free to not talk to me all you want.

Though I'm not sure what one earth leads you to the belief you have any right to decide what thread any poster here is allowed to participate in - that's an astounding level of arrogance.

I'd say that was a strawman formulation of what was said.

He didn't say he had a right to decide if you were allowed to participate in the discussion, he just asked if he could put you on ignore. Barring that, he asked if you'd not shit on his exploration of how he's enjoying boardgames more than RPGs, and you doubled down on being a dick.

But he's astoundingly arrogant. After you pulled the "I win!" thing.

That shit's silly dude.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'd say that was a strawman formulation of what was said.

He didn't say he had a right to decide if you were allowed to participate in the discussion, he just asked if he could put you on ignore. Barring that, he asked if you'd not shit on his exploration of how he's enjoying boardgames more than RPGs, and you doubled down on being a dick.

Bullshit. He asked if he could put a mod on ignore, and then asked me to leave the thread because he doesn't want to talk to me, followed by some ad hominem nonsense.

But shall we talk about starting a thread about "I like boardgames more than RPGs" on an RPG forum (and yes, he posted it into the RPG forum before it was moved to the boardgame forum) ? Which, fine, whatever, I didn't see any need to call him out on that, even if it's a borderline trolling activity at best. But then to not expect anyone to express an opposing PoV on that matter?

When not able to adequetely argue against that opposing view to resort to strawmen and disengenuous arguments?

And when called on that to resort to a passive-agressive "whatever bro" and enter tantrum mode?

You'll have to excuse me if by that point I cease to take a poster's PoV seriously. Or don't excuse me, I don't care.

But he's astoundingly arrogant. After you pulled the "I win!" thing.

That shit's silly dude.

Well, of course it was silly; it was a joke. It was an obviously an incredibly sarcastic response. He earned it.

You reeally think I'm sitting here at my computrer concerned about "winning" an online debate about games? That I place any value on whether anyone agrees with me or not? C'mon, how old do you think I am?

The majority of debates I've ever had on this forum end in one of two ways: we either find a common ground, or we just accept we have different opinions and are not convinced by the other's points, and move on. And within the hour we're likely to be joking about geese or reminiscing about something from the 80s.

And the cases where that doesn't happen? It's inevitably because someone is unable or unwilling to actually provide a counterpoint (something they are under no obligation to do), but is simultaneously upset that someone is expressing a PoV they disagree with. The "whatever Bro" is just snark, the follow up concretely confirms this: "how dare this person express a PoV I disagree with? They should not be allowed. "

And my reaction to that is, utterly and thoroughly, contempt.

And trust me when I say my initial response to that was WAYYYY different than some sarcastic humour at my own expense.

That was me self-censoring. That was me playing nice. Effacing in a silly way to deflate the situation. Because I want the Pub to be the sort of place where the default response to dishonesty and childishness is humour.

 

[SavAce]

Bullshit. He asked if he could put a mod on ignore, and then asked me to leave the thread because he doesn't want to talk to me, followed by some ad hominem nonsense.

Yup, he did ask if he could put a mod in ignore (which I said), and asked you to leave the thread (which I said). He didn't say he had a right to this, he just asked, hence my confusion as to what is "Bullshit" I guess. Admittedly, in his frustration some ad hominem stuff was expressed.

But shall we talk about starting a thread about "I like boardgames more than RPGs" on an RPG forum (and yes, he posted it into the RPG forum before it was moved to the boardgame forum ?

Which, fine, whatever, I didn't see any need to call him out on that, even if it's a borderline trolling activity at best. But then to not expect anyone to express an opposing PoV on that matter?

When not able to adequetely argue against that opposing view to resort to strawmen and disengenuous arguments?

I feel like you're implying an attack against RPGs that silva never intended here and... taking offense or something? Also, you're stripping his initial post of its tone, which supplies context. "I think I'm enjoying boardgames more than RPGs these days" is the thread title. His initial post is just geeking out joy about how much he is enjoying these games. Like, it's this recent discovery of his that he's having fun with and he asks people if they like them, if they know the history of them, etc. We know from posting history he also likes and plays RPGs. He's not out to destroy the hobby and offend us. To consider it "borderline trolling activity at best" really feels like it'd require someone to be hopped up on a "what are you looking at?" kinda vibe.

But then to not expect anyone to express an opposing PoV on that matter?

What is there to be opposed to? His joy at playing these games recently? Is his enjoyment something that requires a tedious "What is roleplaying, really?" definition discussion and a breakdown of how that means whatever reasons he is giving for why he thinks he enjoys these games, some of them really aren't accurate when you look at what RPGs offer and the limitations of the Boardgaming form, and he really needs to adequately argue for his position from across a language barrier? Clearly, he enjoys something about these games. That's cool.

I think that basically, silva found a kind of game he's been enjoying recently and started a thread wanting to hear from other folks that have been grooving on the same groove and got frustrated with folks going on about how the games he was digging were limited in this way and that.

It's like he went on Craigslist posting for a hip-hop producer and ended up with a discussion about how hip-hop is and isn't real music. I mean, it's a wide open forum, so that kind of thing can happen. I dunno. As for the contempt and presumption of bad faith, etc... I think it's a little harsh, but that's forums sometimes.

 

[Edgewise]

If you organize an RPGPub strip beer pong poker tournament I will DEFINITELY not be there!

<reluctantly cancels post in Game Ads and Sign-Ups forum>

In the Azathoth scenario, for e.g., you start by investigating the city after rumors of temporal anomalies, and the clues are all coherent to that ("while strolling by Independence Square, you notice there's a new monument you haven't seen before. There's a inscription at it's base saying "1948. In homage to our brave soldiers who died at World War 2". Strange huh? Gain a clue.") [the game is set in the year 1926, so that's clearly a temporal anomaly].

I'm not a hardcore immersionist, but how is this solving a mystery? It's just a chit with window dressing. Seriously, this is a terrible example.

You keep repeating this but I don't get it. What exactly is "active" in the act of pixel hunting for the GM pre-canned plot?

Even that inferior kind of RPG experience has the players figuring things out. And as long as the GM isn't the worst kind of railroader, the way that the players discover the mystery allows for creative decision-making.

Basically, it takes the worst possible GM to remove the ability for players to participate in actually solving a mystery, whereas it's actually impossible for a player (not their in-game character in the flavor-text fiction) of Arkham Horror to do so.

This isn't about saying that one experience is more fun or even "better" than another. But I am saying that there is qualitative difference in the kind of fun you can have. Overall, I think RPGs offer a greater breadth, but one area that board games clearly surpass RPGs is the competitive experience.

Barring that, he asked if you'd not shit on his exploration of how he's enjoying boardgames more than RPGs, and you doubled down on being a dick.

No, he asked him to leave the thread and never talk to him again. It's very clear and I don't know why you're trying to spin someone else's statement.

Effacing in a silly way to deflate the situation.

Now this is where I disagree with you. I think using humor in a tense situation risks coming across like one is making fun of the other party, or at least minimizing their concerns. To be honest, I see a steady escalation between the posts of the two of you. Still, it's nice that you moderated your initial instinct.

When not able to adequetely argue against that opposing view to resort to strawmen and disengenuous arguments?

It's a fine line, but I don't think this is a good reason to get into an argument. If you feel that this is happening, I'd just not bother with him.

There are a few points I rolled my eyes (see above), and I do think there's a slightly provocative element to the topic itself. But...nothing quite crosses my line.

 

[TristramEvans]

Now this is where I disagree with you. I think using humor in a tense situation risks coming across like one is making fun of the other party, or at least minimizing their concerns. To be honest, I see a steady escalation between the posts of the two of you. Still, it's nice that you moderated your initial instinct.

Oh, I was definitely poking fun at him by that point, I'll cop to that. I just never in a thousand years would have thought someone would take it as me seriously "gloating" about "winning". I thought it was too over the top to be interpreted as anything besides ludicrous sarcasm.

But I agree, there was an escalation , at least in annoyance,.Make no mistake, I fully admit that I can be an asshole. But I don't think that simply expressing, clarifying, and arguing an opinion was me being an asshole. That came at the point that, If we were back at The Site, some well-placed expletives would have been used, along with letting people know where they can put certain things in certain places. I thought some sarcastic humour was less antagonistic than that, fwiw.

 

[Edgewise]

But I don't think that simply expressing, clarifying, and arguing an opinion was me being an asshole.

Just to be clear, I'm not calling anyone an asshole, and I don't think there was anything wrong with making any of the points that were made, even the ones I that thought were Bad and Wrong. I think things started to subtly escalate with word choices that denigrated another's favored mode of play ("pixel hunting," "Lovecraft tofu," "funny voices," "active/passive" etc.). Irritation, unacknowledged, leaks and amplifies until a critical mass is achieved. The internet just makes the whole process highly-efficient.

 

[SavAce]

FWIW, sorry for expressing myself in a, umm, not calming way, inserting myself into a discussion I wasn't even super actively a participant in.

 

[Gabriel]

The same as going to a Transformers forum and starting a thread abourt how you prefer Gobots.

Sorry. I'm comic book guy this morning.

Gobots are actually Transformers now. Habro bought the brand sometime years ago. There's a whole subline of Transformers galled GoBots. I think there might have even been a Leader One release under the Transformers banner years ago.

 

[Necrozius]

I would like to find a way to make some board games MORE like RPGs.

Zombicide, for example. It would be neat if there was a way to use persistent heroes across multiple "campaigns". I mean, you kind of can with a bit of fudging, but after a while you just "peak" and can't get any stronger. It would be cool if there was a way to do this: scale up in power and gear but more gradually.

 

[TristramEvans]

FWIW, sorry for expressing myself in a, umm, not calming way, inserting myself into a discussion I wasn't even super actively a participant in.

By the end of the night I was in a pretty bitchy mood. Probably responded harsher than I needed to. I'll give it some distance before I decide how justified I was.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

This thread is long, so maybe I will repeat something already said, but here goes anyway.

I really like dungeon-crawling boardgames like Descent, but they can't really replace RPGs for me.
They always end up, feeling limiting after a while.

Even if they feature some none dungeon-crawling things. I remember, when playing Warhammer Quest, that the Town part sometimes ended up being more dangerous, than the dungeon part.

I also was a bit disappointed, with the D&D Boardgames based on 4th edition. I have the Drizzt one and one of my friends have the Ashardalon one. Even though, the games are good, I feel they would have been better, if they had used more of the RPG rules, they sprang from.

 

[E-Rocker]

I enjoy board games and I enjoy RPGs, but I can't get the kind of fun I enjoy in RPGs from board games.

Lately, most of my board gaming is solo, because most of my currently available gamer buddies are in my Savage Worlds group, and if we can get together, then it's time to play Savage Worlds! The other peeps I used to board game with are largely unavailable these days.

 

[Edgewise]

Even though, the games are good, I feel they would have been better, if they had used more of the RPG rules, they sprang from.

A couple more commas and you'll need to go to the Comma Store.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

A couple more commas and you'll need to go to the Comma Store.

Sorry. It's a habit from my my native language. In danish, we use a lot of commas.

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[Edgewise]

Sorry. It's a habit from my my native language. In danish, we use a lot of commas.

No need to apologize, just having some fun with you. Being Dutch is no defense, by the way; last time I was in Amsterdam, the people spoke better English than in my native New Amsterdam.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I enjoy board games and I enjoy RPGs, but I can't get the kind of fun I enjoy in RPGs from board games.

Lately, most of my board gaming is solo, because most of my currently available gamer buddies are in my Savage Worlds group, and if we can get together, then it's time to play Savage Worlds! The other peeps I used to board game with are largely unavailable these days.

Luckily, I have both a RPG and a Boardgame group.
The boardgame group is made up of some old buddies of mine, who doen't have the time for a regular RPG game.
So we meet about once a month, and play boardgames instead.

Edgewise No offense taken. I was also trying to make fun back. Because Im aware of the problem. It's probably because I write to long sentences, a lot of the time.

 

[Dumarest]

Sorry. It's a habit from my my native language. In danish, we use a lot of commas.

Being Dutch is no defense, by the way; last time I was in Amsterdam, the people spoke better English than in my native New Amsterdam.

​

 

[Bunch]

Luckily, I have both a RPG and a Boardgame group.
The boardgame group is made up of some old buddies of mine, who doen't have the time for a regular RPG game.
So we meet about once a month, and play boardgames instead.

Edgewise No offense taken. I was also trying to make fun back. Because Im aware of the problem. It's probably because I write to long sentences, a lot of the time.

I'm a native, native speaker and college educated in the US and as many can attest to write incredibly long run on sentences often. When in doubt about proper English i defer to the anything in the Scandinavian region. Really a conifer has a better shot at proper English sentence structure than the average American.

 

[Edgewise]

I guess I inadvertently proved my point!

 

[3rik]

I'm Dutch...

I live below sea level and there's two operational monumental windmills at a walking distance from where I live. But I don't think I would be qualified to advice people on the proper use of English, though I'm generally fairly good at spelling.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I would like to find a way to make some board games MORE like RPGs.

Zombicide, for example. It would be neat if there was a way to use persistent heroes across multiple "campaigns". I mean, you kind of can with a bit of fudging, but after a while you just "peak" and can't get any stronger. It would be cool if there was a way to do this: scale up in power and gear but more gradually.

If I read the thread right, you're just supposed to play All Flesh Must Be Eaten* and anything else is a trivial, pointless waste of time because board games are not RPGs and to try to make them so is like fucking cats.

Or something.

I kinda skimmed after a while.

*Or some other zombie apocalypse game.

*Also, I'm not mad at anything, more befuddled at how this thread took the weird ass hostile turn it did.