The only story game I looked into was Thirsty Sword Lesbians and it had more mechanics dedicated to relationship-building and flirting than swordplay. It was both awkwardly rules-light while being extremely restrictive, a bizarre combination.

I haven't actually played many storygames, but before I left Chronicles of Darkness fandom I was really annoyed when they introduced the beats and conditions mechanics. You basically get XP for deliberately choosing to make failed rolls into fumbles. Also, the rules for fumbles were toned down compared to previous editions because it was too punishing for this to be viable. I hate this because it's a dissociative mechanic that pits the player and character against each other. That's stupid design imo

I talked to some PbtA players and they basically told me Storytelling system is a misnomer that sucks at storytelling and that "story games" like PbtA were made in direct response to its many, many problems. I've come to despise ST long before then and what they told me makes perfect sense. I feel pity for the remaining ST fans, but most of them are set in their ways and aren't gonna switch to PbtA or another system better suited to the experience they actually want to play.

When the term "storygame" comes up, the first thing I think of is Hillfolk/Dramasystem. Mostly this is just because this (now hilariously dated) video was my introduction to the whole concept.



Storygaming largely became a thing during a period of time where I wasn't paying much attention to RPGs, so I missed it. I never bought or played Hillfolk, but it sounds like a pretty quintessential storygame.

Ehhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game.  When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading."  Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.

So, I would define mechanics as "storygame" mechanics when they: a) limit or remove the agency of the DM, or b) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal.  So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will).  Another example would be metacurrency designed to allow the players to change the events happening in the game proactively.  This would be any metacurrency that allows a player to create an event, NPC, plot change, etc.  This is different from "luck points", "fate points" or Savage Worlds' "bennies."  Usually luck points or the like allow the player to avoid the consequence of a roll or event that is happening to them.  It's reactionary.  Storygame metacurrency allows the players to invent or redirect the events of the game before those events even occur.  One type, where the player can spend points to "create" a tool, aid, etc. (i.e. "I look around for something to open the drawer" [spends a point]; DM: "You find a screwdriver sitting on the table") is very close, but it really depends on whether the points allow the players to guide the story or just react to it.  That's how I would categorize "storygame" mechanics...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 10:00:49 PM
Ehhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game.  When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading."  Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.

So, I would define mechanics as "storygame" mechanics when they: a) limit or remove the agency of the DM, or b) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal.  So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will).  Another example would be metacurrency designed to allow the players to change the events happening in the game proactively.  This would be any metacurrency that allows a player to create an event, NPC, plot change, etc.  This is different from "luck points", "fate points" or Savage Worlds' "bennies."  Usually luck points or the like allow the player to avoid the consequence of a roll or event that is happening to them.  It's reactionary.  Storygame metacurrency allows the players to invent or redirect the events of the game before those events even occur.  One type, where the player can spend points to "create" a tool, aid, etc. (i.e. "I look around for something to open the drawer" [spends a point]; DM: "You find a screwdriver sitting on the table") is very close, but it really depends on whether the points allow the players to guide the story or just react to it.  That's how I would categorize "storygame" mechanics...

I feel like that Schrodinger mechanic was introduced as a way to keep adventures moving rather than grinding to a halt when the players fail a roll and the adventure book or GM isn't equipped to keep things moving.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 04, 2024, 11:18:11 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 10:00:49 PM
Ehhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game.  When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading."  Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.

So, I would define mechanics as "storygame" mechanics when they: a) limit or remove the agency of the DM, or b) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal.  So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will).  Another example would be metacurrency designed to allow the players to change the events happening in the game proactively.  This would be any metacurrency that allows a player to create an event, NPC, plot change, etc.  This is different from "luck points", "fate points" or Savage Worlds' "bennies."  Usually luck points or the like allow the player to avoid the consequence of a roll or event that is happening to them.  It's reactionary.  Storygame metacurrency allows the players to invent or redirect the events of the game before those events even occur.  One type, where the player can spend points to "create" a tool, aid, etc. (i.e. "I look around for something to open the drawer" [spends a point]; DM: "You find a screwdriver sitting on the table") is very close, but it really depends on whether the points allow the players to guide the story or just react to it.  That's how I would categorize "storygame" mechanics...

I feel like that Schrodinger mechanic was introduced as a way to keep adventures moving rather than grinding to a halt when the players fail a roll and the adventure book or GM isn't equipped to keep things moving.

I guess that depends on the game, but every time I have seen it the mechanic acts as a "this is what I want to happen" (In other words, the player gets to create or delete something in the setting to allow the player to have the narrative of the game follow a path more to his liking).  Which is pretty much textbook storygame...

QuoteThe only story game I looked into was Thirsty Sword Lesbians and it had more mechanics dedicated to relationship-building and flirting than swordplay. It was both awkwardly rules-light while being extremely restrictive, a bizarre combination.

Because game is very specific in its topic - so mechanics is restrictive to put game fiction in specific style and genre, but there are lot of things you can do it ignores - and it's then matter of ruling between you, GM, or you GM and whole table.

QuoteI haven't actually played many storygames, but before I left Chronicles of Darkness fandom I was really annoyed when they introduced the beats and conditions mechanics. You basically get XP for deliberately choosing to make failed rolls into fumbles. Also, the rules for fumbles were toned down compared to previous editions because it was too punishing for this to be viable. I hate this because it's a dissociative mechanic that pits the player and character against each other. That's stupid design imo

I'd point out generally WOD and COD are not storygames, but normal trad games, that fed users with extremely narrativist GM propaganda usually not really supported by mechanics whatsoever.
In storygames I've played - only a lil bit, there were certain incentives like XP for deciding to follow action in desperate position (threatning most severe consequences) or even simply XP for failing in risky situation (you learn from own mistakes thing). Alas I do not remember such weird switch mechanics even though storygames are purposefully dissociative and they mock immersionism.

QuoteI talked to some PbtA players and they basically told me Storytelling system is a misnomer that sucks at storytelling and that "story games" like PbtA were made in direct response to its many, many problems. I've come to despise ST long before then and what they told me makes perfect sense. I feel pity for the remaining ST fans, but most of them are set in their ways and aren't gonna switch to PbtA or another system better suited to the experience they actually want to play.

Bot Storyteller culture and Storygames culture are very narrative-centric but they reach it with so extremely different methods I don't think someone used to one of those styles would easily adopt to another one.

QuoteEhhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game.  When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading."  Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.

That I deeply disagree. Vast majority of RPGs considered to belong to Storygame culture are dogmatically against determining story ahead of time. In fact they are most improvisational school, one often basically barring GM or players from any prep.
What storygame structure means to uphold is specific genre or type of fiction - and that indeed is predetermined. You play Blades - then you play band of criminals, no going back.

Quoteb) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal.  So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will).

I must say I remember such mechanics only from Zweihander and Conan, neither storygames, but even then it was used more like luck points, and DM doom points could force player to re-roll good roll and pick worse result or give adv to bad guy.



Now personally I'd categorize RPG as storygame if a) there is strong enforcement of genre in both game procedures and PC mechanics (like everything non-genred is resolved by GM fiat or simple lack roll, game purposefully make out-of-genre experience empty b) the equivalent of skill rolls is more narrative than reduced to simulationist task - so they can encompass whole larger endeavour in one roll c) rolls are almost always more complext than win/lose d) DM is more open with consequences and reward of roll and may actively discuss it and bargain with players and vice versa. e) every roll (or other use of mechanics) is meant to significantly change fiction - there should be not mere misses or empty rolls. Always good or bad consequences to push situation