Quote from: Benoist;372844Genre emulation in this case implies a color, or feel to the game that is still a role playing game, where you are playing characters in a game world that is "actual" in your mind's eye. You are your character, your character is you.

Fiction emulation implies the implementation of patterns and techniques used to write fiction, which leads to players seeing themselves as "narrators" apart of their characters, which become "protagonists" in a "story" with storylines, plots, subplots. A way to look at the game as a piece of fiction with a narrative, as opposed to a game of immersion and actuality.

The fact that you're not seeing the difference, along with the way you were saying that you don't see anything "wrong" with story gaming, actually validates my point that fiction genre emulation may lead to story gaming. You like that. I don't.

I think you may not be too far off in claiming that story-gaming is rooted in a desire for genre emulation. A genre or setting colour seems to be very high on the list of priorities in most of the games I've been playing over the past few years. But this description of fiction emulation overstates the way literary elements are inserted into "story game" play, at least in my experience.

And something that doesn't seem to have been addressed at all so far is that many story game rpgs stress that PC motivations and actions need to be the central, driving force of the gameplay. This seems directly counter to a lot of published 2e and WW material. Maybe one of the reasons 2e is so widely disliked is that it ultimately alienated both the old-school players, who stuck with 1e and OD&D, and the "story" gamers.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372967Similarly with Sett, Elliott, you, and a number of other vocal posters connected to the OSR on here who go off about "story gaming". "Story gaming" and "Immersion" (or whatever it is this week) are artificial categories of play that don't exist except on message boards. It's like GNS all over again.

The funny thing here is that Sett is nearly as !!!! about the OSR as our friend J Arcane, and I've never connected myself very closely to the OSR.

What's really going on here is that you're still bearing a grudge over the criticism of 4e, and the counter-criticism of the lame use of history by 4e's defenders.

A bit late but what the hell:

Quote from: Benoist;3726631/ Yes. Removing the Assassin really was all about protecting TSR from lawsuits from people hunting D&D with pitchforks (though it was indeed reintroduced through the backdoor, via Complete Thief's Handbook).

From Zeb Cook on Dragonsfoot
The assassin class created a lot of problems for players and DM's, everything from game abuse to party harmony. It was a class specialized powers for specialized situations that a lot of players insisted should be a general utility in a standard adventuring party which killed the point. Besides which, assassination is more a mindset than a single set of skills. If you RP'd an assassination proper, any character class could do it, they just had to use the skills they had. I didn't argue to remove it to be PC (believe me, I'm not that PC); I felt it created more problems for play than it was worth.

Quote from: Spazmodeus;373004From Zeb Cook on Dragonsfoot
The assassin class created a lot of problems for players and DM's, everything from game abuse to party harmony. It was a class specialized powers for specialized situations that a lot of players insisted should be a general utility in a standard adventuring party which killed the point. Besides which, assassination is more a mindset than a single set of skills. If you RP'd an assassination proper, any character class could do it, they just had to use the skills they had. I didn't argue to remove it to be PC (believe me, I'm not that PC); I felt it created more problems for play than it was worth.

Interesting. Thanks for that.

Quote from: two_fishes;372991I think you may not be too far off in claiming that story-gaming is rooted in a desire for genre emulation. A genre or setting colour seems to be very high on the list of priorities in most of the games I've been playing over the past few years. But this description of fiction emulation overstates the way literary elements are inserted into "story game" play, at least in my experience.

And something that doesn't seem to have been addressed at all so far is that many story game rpgs stress that PC motivations and actions need to be the central, driving force of the gameplay. This seems directly counter to a lot of published 2e and WW material.

Actually I think this applies to most published scenarios. By the very nature published scenarios have to be generic and won't address the specific motivations (unless it's something as basic as "more gold"). Most published scenarios are simply appalling, there is no getting away from that.

On the general theme of terminology and jargon, I agree that this discussion could profit from recognizing the distinction that between "story gaming" (mostly Forge style) and heavily-scripted "storytelling games" (which, in publication history, actually go back to the early 80's at least).

In practice, though, the most prominent "story games" are equally unfriendly to the "in character experience" approach as "storytelling games".

Quote from: two_fishes;372991something that doesn't seem to have been addressed at all so far is that many story game rpgs stress that PC motivations and actions need to be the central, driving force of the gameplay. This seems directly counter to a lot of published 2e and WW material. Maybe one of the reasons 2e is so widely disliked is that it ultimately alienated both the old-school players, who stuck with 1e and OD&D, and the "story" gamers.

That's an interesting bit, there, 2F. I thought there was more of an evolution from the insistance on genre emulation that 2e tried to carry to a step further down the road where fiction emulation became a thing of its own, i.e. importing fiction writing techniques and elements into the game play (the WoD games boom), which led to story gaming (aka forgite storygames), in vaguely chronological order.

Quote from: Benoist;373013That's an interesting bit, there, 2F. I thought there was more of an evolution from the insistance on genre emulation that 2e tried to carry to a step further down the road where fiction emulation became a thing of its own, i.e. importing fiction writing techniques and elements into the game play (the WoD games boom), which led to story gaming (aka forgite storygames), in vaguely chronological order.

Many story games may be a response to the way WoD and 2e forced those literary "fiction emulation" elements into games. I'm thinking of Ron Edwards' hatred of the whole meta-fiction trend in Dragonlance and WoD as well as the way many Forgey games insist on prepping a situation "pregnant with conflict" that has no pre-determined outcome (Dogs in the Vineyard) or where PC goals are mechanically emphasized, forcing players to drive the story, not the GM (Burning Wheel). So the chronology may be roughly correct.

Definitely agreed about the emphasis on meta-fiction and "GM story time" creating problems.

Most of the time I just ignore the "writing techniques" WoD puts in its books, and just run it like a sandbox game, tossing out hooks and interesting NPCs as necessary.  Much more fun than trying to box the players in.

Hell, has anyone read Tracy Hickman's Xtreme Dungeon Mastery?  The whole "Story is Everything!" chapter is basically about how to railroad your players without letting them realize what's going on (freedom within a confined space, but still limiting players to only a handful of outcomes in the end, making the "freedom" earlier in the meta-plot pretty pointless).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;373003The funny thing here is that Sett is nearly as !!!! about the OSR as our friend J Arcane, and I've never connected myself very closely to the OSR.

What's really going on here is that you're still bearing a grudge over the criticism of 4e, and the counter-criticism of the lame use of history by 4e's defenders.

Not really. In case you haven't noticed, I've been ignoring the 4e flame wars here for months now. It's just that the same silly vocabulary used there is still being circulated, and has begun to infest other discussions.

Quote from: Benoist;372974There is a difference in play style, and the OSP addresses this difference. I don't see it as an attempt to disparage anything. I see how the example can be misconstrued as such, but since it very cleary spells out that it is not such attempt in its disclaimer, I do not. Do with it as you will.

I'm not "misconstruing" it. I'm saying that it's an artificial distinction since it doesn't occur in the wild. Matt acknowledges as much in the very disclaimer you noted. And especially since he acknowledges that modern games aren't "that boring" it's spurious to assign that as the "modern" style and the other as the "old school" style.

QuoteActually, no, these aren't "artificial" categories. One (story gaming) understands games  as the reenactment of story lines, plots, subplots, with countless GMs out there who try to emulate its tenets and are suddenly surprised that their game went to shit, their players quit because the game was too linear, or they did not talk to the right NPC, went off the map/track/storyline, or felt like none of their choices mattered in the grand scheme of things, whereas the other (immersive gaming) depicts events in the game world as they occur, as examplified in a sandbox style of play, or dungeon/wilderness explorations, or open-ended campaign for instances, where story is the consequence of play after it actually occurred.

They remain artificial and inaccurate categories because the things they describe coexist in actual gaming groups, and interact with one another in all sorts of interesting ways. These categories are mere regulative ideals for the few people who care about them, without merit as descriptions of what actually goes on at tables.

QuoteI've seen plenty of both types of games, and really, you can talk about forgite bullshit, try to keep the argument squarely focused on terminological hair-splitting (very similar to forgite speech on your part, by the way) and or pure rhetorical wankery, as you've done time and time again on this board, but just because you say something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. Sorry to say.

Nice try, though.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of a thing. Whining about how I'm mean and nasty for claiming that you're full of shit doesn't show the existence of the pure types of these categories outside of your head.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;373067Not really. In case you haven't noticed, I've been ignoring the 4e flame wars here for months now. It's just that the same silly vocabulary used there is still being circulated, and has begun to infest other discussions.

Well, there have been some attempts to reexamine the use of the word "immersion"; in my opinion, the term itself has been poisoned and it would be good if it went away. But the various concepts behind it are each fairly rigorous once they're teased apart from each other.

You yourself once suggested "mimetic" vs. "formalistic" as categories. I don't think those particular words are absolutely necessary--there's already vocabulary available, not to mention longhand explanations as necessary. But the conceptual distinction is valid and it allows people to express a preference, analyze reactions to design and cultural developments, and so forth.

Unfortunately, once you do draw a distinction and use it in this fashion, that doesn't mean--not by a long shot--that people are now going to agree on matters of taste. I think the thing to do at this point is to accept that tastes differ.

I realize that theoretical discussion and criticism have a tendency to amplify differences. But if your first resort, in response to someone trying to articulate their reasons for liking or disliking something, is to try to completely invalidate the categories which underlie their perceptions, that's intellectually dishonest.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;373072Well, there have been some attempts to reexamine the use of the word "immersion"; in my opinion, the term itself has been poisoned and it would be good if it went away. But the various concepts behind it are each fairly rigorous once they're teased apart from each other.

Entirely possible. I'm not saying that all conceptual thinking about RPGs is bad. A lot of it is, though.

If I had to point to a single, consistent conceptual problem that drives me absolutely nuts and which I think is obviously a problem when it's pointed out, it's the confusion between systems and styles of play (and, as a corollary, the belief that one causes the other). It's not the only problem, but it's one that I see being pretty consistently made.

QuoteYou yourself once suggested "mimetic" vs. "formalistic" as categories. I don't think those particular words are absolutely necessary--there's already vocabulary available, not to mention longhand explanations as necessary. But the conceptual distinction is valid and it allows people to express a preference, analyze reactions to design and cultural developments, and so forth.

"Mimetic" and "formalist" refer to game system types, not styles of play. Because of the importance I place on playing styles, I don't talk about that distinction very much, and I don't claim that the two sides of the distinction are mutually exclusive (in fact, I've mentioned several times in the past that it's a spectrum). I also tend to avoid using those terms unless absolutely necessary, as my own concession to avoiding jargon.

Regarding "story game" and "immersion", I really don't think they're good distinctions. The discussion prior to their use on this thread was a superior analysis of preferences because it was forced to speak to specifics. Once people can simply lump themselves into one category or another, they no longer have to engage with the texts under discussion or their experiences of playing the game (or even just their expectations about what playing it will be like). I think this is a bad thing, that it encourages lazy thinking, and that it reduces the quality of discussion.

QuoteUnfortunately, once you do draw a distinction and use it in this fashion, that doesn't mean--not by a long shot--that people are now going to agree on matters of taste. I think the thing to do at this point is to accept that tastes differ.

I have no problem with tastes differing in this context. We're not debating the merit of any particular taste - I've never had a problem with OSR people enjoying OD&D, nor with 4e people enjoying 4e.

QuoteI realize that theoretical discussion and criticism have a tendency to amplify differences. But if your first resort, in response to someone trying to articulate their reasons for liking or disliking something, is to try to completely invalidate the categories which underlie their perceptions, that's intellectually dishonest.

It would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't really think that the categories are bad ones with pernicious effects on thinking and writing about games. But I do. It's a disagreement about foundations, rigour and care in thinking and writing, just like it has been for the last, what, four years now?

And for the record, the post which started this whole shitstorm, the "bafflegab" comment, was in response to Soylent Green's confusion about what the hell all the jargon Benoist started throwing at him meant. Benoist's comment about him was high-handed, pretentious and condescending if you're at all aware of Benoist's opinion on "story gaming". A perfect example of the corrosive effect of jargon.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;373069I don't know if you're aware of this, but the burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of a thing.

Honestly, all I see is you going on and on with rhetorical bullshit, silly hair splitting and a basic intellectual dishonesty I'm tired to have to deal with. There's no content in your post. Just negative mental fencing which is supposedly destined to fix what you perceive as my -how did you put it?- high-handed, pretentious and condescending comment. If there's someone condescending here, it's you, dipshit. The "corrosive effect of jargon" you're talking about is something you, yourself, alone, fabricated from my comments. You somehow think it's okay, and nobody will notice. That makes you a whole lot more pretentious than I am, trust me.

But you know what? Whatever. As I said, I'm tired of your bullshit. We went on for several pages on this thread, and that's just enough. I have better things to do. If you enjoy wasting your time, more power to you, I guess. Good day!

Quote from: Benoist;373110Honestly, all I see is you going on and on with rhetorical bullshit, silly hair splitting and a basic intellectual dishonesty I'm tired to have to deal with. There's no content in your post. Just negative mental fencing which is supposedly destined to fix what you perceive as my -how did you put it?- high-handed, pretentious and condescending comment. If there's someone condescending here, it's you, dipshit. The "corrosive effect of jargon" you're talking about is something you, yourself, alone, fabricated from my comments. You somehow think it's okay, and nobody will notice. That makes you a whole lot more pretentious than I am, trust me.

But you know what? Whatever. As I said, I'm tired of your bullshit. We went on for several pages on this thread, and that's just enough. I have better things to do. If you enjoy wasting your time, more power to you, I guess. Good day!

A few years ago on this forum, pseudoephedrine claimed that anarchy was a stable and desireable form of gevernment. If that statement doesn't convince you that he is full of shit, then nothing ever will.