This may be ridiculously rambling, and also difficulted by my crappy English, so be patient.

First: who am I and where come I from (gaming-wise)? Well, I've been playing for more than 25 years, started with the Red Box, and still like D&D in any edition from OD&D to 4e. My favourite system is BRP (specially RQ3, though MRQ II is giving it a run for the money), and these days I'm running a 7th Sea sandbox campaign and a CoC Delta Green campaign. I have played many games, from traditional old-school games to "storytelling games" (Vampire and other WW games which I like) to artsy-fartsy more modern games (like Nobilis, which I like). I like some indie games (Sorcerer, DitV, , others (Poison'd, Maid, We all had names, Grey Ranks, Steal Away Jordan) I find boring and pointless to no end. I like immersion and genre emulation in my games, though I see how some people may not be interested on that and still be playing an RPG. So, I'm not particularly affiliated to any side in any pointless imaginary war.

Many persons here try to assert a clear division between role-playing games and story-games. This division may go from the "they're entirely different games" to the "they belong to the same family of games but they have distinctive elements and should not mingle." Of course, you can find also a lot of people who just don't give a fuck and will use (or not) any technique or idea that can improve their games, without any ideological concern.

Now, this divide fascinates me, not by the divide itself (which is just a marketing ploy to me on both sides) but because of the extreme reactions that may elicitate from some people here. Otherwise reasonable people will go apeshit ballistic at the mention of "story" as a component of RPGs, and will gry in outrage if someone mentions a narrative term related to a gaming session. They may be actively rewriting the past (as some OSR people will do regarding da pulp tradishuns of the hobby) or they may not, but they insist on keeping both things separate.

I don't understand how it can be done, such a clear separation.

To me, an RPG cannot be separated from a storytelling activity just because of basic human nature. We are narrative beings. We see stories everywhere, even where there are none, our brains strive to find patterns that can be acomodated into a coherent narrative, and if there are no patterns we will create some.

An RPG is a game in which imaginary characters under the control of the players do imaginary stuff in an environment free of restrictions apart from the limits set by the internal coherence of the imaginary setting. How cannot be found a story there? There may be or not a guy in charge of arbitrating the consequences of the PC's actions and making rules calls, or they may be none, but the activity of playing a role does not change. And most importantly, what happens it is perceived by the participants as a story, and the comparisons with other narrative media (movies, books, etc) are bound to happen. I find enormously artificial to try to keep them separated.

Does this mean that I say that RPGs should be planned or conducted like other storytelling media, that campaigns should be planned by the GM like a TV series, or a book, or the script of a film? No, not at all. But a story is going to emerge as a result of the actions of the players, and more importantly, I firmly believe that the narrative nature of RPGs will condition the actions and expected outcomes of the part of the players. Some situations will be perceived as anticlimactic, some other will feel "right" or a good closure, and so on.

Does this mean that I say that RPGs should incorporate mechanics to enforce or make sure that certain narrative outcomes are ensured? No, I think that an RPG should include mechanics that help emulate a certain mood, setting, genre or whatever the author wants. In a 7th Sea game über-gritty mechanics make no sense, and having Dramatic Dice to help PCs achieve their goals make a lot of sense if you are trying to emulate the swashbuckling genre.

But there are many "storygamey" mechanics that are reviled and despised here that fall into the exact same camp, and it shows a curious double standard on the part of the people who hates the very idea of story-telling mixed with their RPGs. Humanity in Vampire (or Sorcerer) emulates certain mood and maybe genre (depending on your literary sources). And so on: and it is great, because it makes games different. If all the RPGs try to be a physics engine and nothing more, then there's not much reason to look out for variety: you can just get your favourite physics engine (BRP, GURPS, D20, whatever) and run everything with it, with the ocasional tweaking. This does not have to be bad, of course. If you are happy using a system for everything, that's great.

The thing is, in story-telling games or storygames, the mechanics that make them supposedly different don't shape the events of the game to produce a predetermined outcome. Actually the opposite, as many times those mechanics are in the hands of the players, and you never know what the hell they will do. If someone knows, he could explain me how he does it.

And that is possibly why whenever some tries to draw a line in the sand ("Hero Points and other bennies are storygamey and thus a sin!") they are always sticking the foot on their mouths. Because you can't. Concerns about the story that arises from a game session have been there since the beginning both in the mechanic part and in the GMing advice in books. And it is only natural, because of course we are telling an improv story with no determined outcome about some imaginary people. And even if I don't like to do that and I don't do it, I can understand why some people may prefer to fudge rolls so a PC won't die in a random encounter but will let the PC die when fighting the main antagonist of the campaign.

We GMs plan possible stories even when we are developing a sandbox, in terms of plotlines that the players may or not follow. And when the palyers disregard a plotline then we decide what happens with that and create the story ourselves to enrich the setting. Pretending otherwise is using a good pair of blinders, because it goes against our very instincts.

Well, that pretty much covers it. Not sure on how coherent it resulted.

What Ramon says is self-evident and common sense, and thus will be fiercely attacked by "trad game" and "storygame" lovers both.

Almost every rpg has both "trad" (random determination, GM-as-challenge-creator/arbiter, etc) elements and "storygame" (hero points, GM-as-fudger, "scene-framing" formal or informal, etc) elements. If these elements are not present in the rules they will usually be present in play.

Of course, if the mix of "trad" and "storygame" elements you use are extremely different to mine, then your game play style is wrong and stupid. This is much as the way that even "free market" economies have many "socialist" features, and vice versa; but we can nonetheless say that a pure "socialist" economy like DPRK is wrong and stupid. Storygames are wrong and stupid, but storygame elements are useful in right and smart play.

I can say that your shade of grey is too dark or too pale without pretending that things are black and white. But if we're to have an imaginary war then we certainly need to pretend things are black and white. (This is particularly so if we're an academic whose name turns up no hits on google scholar, but much the same applies to the rest of us nobodies.)

I see myself as being in the pro-immersion camp, but it seems fundamentally clear to me that a story does indeed emerge through play. The interesting question is - who is telling that story? I think there's a very strong argument for saying that in a "trad" RPG where the GM is the "ultimate authority", it's the GM who is telling the story. What the players choose for their characters doesn't become in-game reality unless/until the GM lets it (though he might do so tacitly or by implication, and not necessarily expressly).

A storygame is (or should be) called a storygame (or storytelling game - same difference) because the players are participating in telling the story. A game is (best) named after what the players do, not what the ref does (you don't call football or any other ballgame "watchball" because the ref watches the ball...). So if the players in an immersive RPG are not participating in telling the story, it would be giving it the wrong emphasis to call it a storygame.

I also agree that a mix of story and roleplay is more or less inevitable. Even if the players are roleplaying immersively, the GM in a "trad" RPG is effectively storygaming (or storytelling) much of the time. That doesn't stop the players roleplaying immersively - on the contrary, it facilitates it. Why would it be a bad thing to mix these two styles? But I give primacy to immersive roleplay because that's where I think the core enjoyment of RPGs lies for me and for many committed gamers:- the GM's enjoyment of the game is often a more "reflective" enjoyment which consists in giving the players a good time. You also have a dividing line alone the lines of "GM as ultimate authority" vs. "shared narrative authority" which really biases the game towards being more immersive or more storygamey and I think that's one of the main demarcating features where you can say which sort of game you're playing.

I'm covering most of these topics at slightly greater length as part of a longer analysis of immersive roleplay which I wrote some time ago and am currently editing. (I'll be putting it at the back of my new RPG as the GMing advice / playing advice / roleplay tips section.)

The main difference is one of focus.  Mechanics by themselves generally don't make for a story game. For a roleplaying game the story comes after as a description of what the players done. For story games the story come first and the players are creating the details of what happened.

One reason that story games have a strong reaction from tabletop roleplayers is that it looks like a system of cheating with get out of jail free cards all over the place. Don't like what happened? Play a plot twist, roll on a table, or whatever. You WILL wind up rescuing the princess, and become king.

Story gamers in contrast look at tabletop roleplaying as stick in the muds devoted to an aging and outdated game. Can't fathom what is fun about making character after character after the previous died some horrible death at the hand of a capricious and arbitrary referee.

Like anything most gamers are not that extreme and many RPGs incorporate story game elements. Mechanics that allow players control the game outside of what their character can do. So we get a muddled mess.

But the line can be drawn for a game by seeing where the focus lies. Is it on the character and the story comes from describing what happened? Or is the story known before the game and the players are just filling in the details. In the former the focus is on characters, the latter the focus is on story.

Whatever I do with my games I seem to end up in the middle ground.

With Tough Justice it's very character driven but also Team Adversarial and based around Social/Investigation with an overly simple Combat mechanic.

Courtesans is even more Character driven but to the point of throwing out plot almost entierly and having no Combat system at all in the core rules.

Doxy is more Trad in that actions are freer and Combat is fully fleshed out and in the core rules but also more storygamey in that you choose the consequences of your Risky Actions should they come up as fails on the Risk Check.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465742Almost every rpg has both "trad" (random determination, GM-as-challenge-creator/arbiter, etc) elements and "storygame" (hero points, GM-as-fudger, "scene-framing" formal or informal, etc) elements. If these elements are not present in the rules they will usually be present in play.

Emphasis mine. My problem with the division lies in actual play, as in actual play the lines are nonexistent.

Quote from: Omnifray;465744I see myself as being in the pro-immersion camp, but it seems fundamentally clear to me that a story does indeed emerge through play. The interesting question is - who is telling that story? I think there's a very strong argument for saying that in a "trad" RPG where the GM is the "ultimate authority", it's the GM who is telling the story. What the players choose for their characters doesn't become in-game reality unless/until the GM lets it (though he might do so tacitly or by implication, and not necessarily expressly).

Maybe we could say that no one "tells" the story by his own, but the GM decision makes it final.

QuoteA storygame is (or should be) called a storygame (or storytelling game - same difference) because the players are participating in telling the story. A game is (best) named after what the players do, not what the ref does (you don't call football or any other ballgame "watchball" because the ref watches the ball...). So if the players in an immersive RPG are not participating in telling the story, it would be giving it the wrong emphasis to call it a storygame.

Well, as long as they are stating the intent of their characters in any game they are telling what the character tries to do. On that, they also tell a story. Same with dialogues.

QuoteWhy would it be a bad thing to mix these two styles?

Beats me.

Quote from: estar;465745But the line can be drawn for a game by seeing where the focus lies. Is it on the character and the story comes from describing what happened? Or is the story known before the game and the players are just filling in the details. In the former the focus is on characters, the latter the focus is on story.

Good post.

But even if we follow your reasoning and draw the line according to focus, things still get muddy.

Lets' use Sorcerer as an example. In Sorcerer, since the chargen, everything revolves around the characters, what the characters do and the problems they face (and how they choose to solve them, as that impacts their Humanity). The GM does not create any plot, apart from thinking about some problems he can throw at the PCs that are related to the PC's goals and situations.

But Sorcerer is an RPG as regular as you can get. You have a GM telling you what and when to roll, you use dice to see if you get things your way, the works. The game tries to create compelling stories about troubled characters that make tough moral decisions. But everything is about the character and the characters can die easily.

Quote from: Imperator;465748Well, as long as they are stating the intent of their characters in any game they are telling what the character tries to do. On that, they also tell a story. Same with dialogues.

Strictly speaking they are not stating their character's intentions nor what their character is trying to do. The players are stating the players' choices for their characters.

The ref could always overrule them and say - "sorry, the mind control effect means that your character does NOT wish to attack the Lich King". I'm not saying that that ought to be a regular occurrence.

But the players are not TELLING the story. They are merely in effect suggesting possible elements for it.

Also the PURPOSE of the player choosing his character's actions is not to NARRATE their outcome but simply to CHOOSE the actions - it's doing-by-speaking or an illocutionary act (which was discussed at great length on this forum a while back). In that sense too the players are not TELLING the story (narrating it). They are certainly INFLUENCING the story, but that's not the central purpose of what they are doing, which is simply to play the role of their characters.

(All of this of course is restricted to immersive roleplaying games as opposed to storygames.)

Quote from: Imperator;465748Good post.

But even if we follow your reasoning and draw the line according to focus, things still get muddy.

Lets' use Sorcerer as an example. In Sorcerer, since the chargen, everything revolves around the characters, what the characters do and the problems they face (and how they choose to solve them, as that impacts their Humanity). The GM does not create any plot, apart from thinking about some problems he can throw at the PCs that are related to the PC's goals and situations.

But Sorcerer is an RPG as regular as you can get. You have a GM telling you what and when to roll, you use dice to see if you get things your way, the works. The game tries to create compelling stories about troubled characters that make tough moral decisions. But everything is about the character and the characters can die easily.

I don't consider mechanics to help flesh out your character personality or life circumstances to be story mechanics. As they are background to when the campaign starts. Knowing what destroys your sorcerer's humanity is no difference than knowing that you served 4 terms in the Imperial Navy and that you are friends with the Grand Admiral.

Quote from: Imperator;465739An RPG is a game in which imaginary characters under the control of the players do imaginary stuff in an environment free of restrictions apart from the limits set by the internal coherence of the imaginary setting. How cannot be found a story there?

I don't have the time right now to get into much detail (been busy over the last few days with preparations for our move) but I'm simply going to present my POV quickly on this. It's on record here all over the place. Let me remind you that to me it's a question of shades in practice, not a clear either/or sort of line in the sand, but for a few games at either extremes of the spectrum.

I think the problem is the way you define an RPG here. It's all there. Your description of an RPG is correct, but it completely misses the point of the game itself, to me : to create the illusion that you are yourself in the make-believe, and to act in a world that is "real", or has the appearance of reality, to your mind's eye.

If you start by conceiving the game as a narrative, a story to be told, you play the game from a third person bird's eye point of view. You don't have this blurrying of the line going on because you have the constant input of authorial mechanics and a shitload of bullshit to constantly remind you that you player are manipulating your "little guy in the game".

That's not what I want to do when I play an RPG. I don't want to play with the strings of my character from an author's POV. I want to BE my character. I want to role play. Not write a novella.

Quote from: Imperator;465748Emphasis mine. My problem with the division lies in actual play, as in actual play the lines are nonexistent.

I acknowledge that to you these lines aren't existent, but to me it's the whole point of talking about this : that it does matter for me in actual play. That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

From these preconceptions are derived so many boneheaded concepts like story arcs and railroading and "my players are not compliant with my grand scheme so I'll make them!" to writing novels through RPGs and submitting players to games where their characters can't do anything to affect the world, to game mechanics piling on to a point the make-believe is completely secondary to a type of game that's whatever isn't role playing, board game, cooperative writing, whatever ... the declinations of the fundamental mistake in conceiving RPG games as cooperative storytelling or narratives is ALL OVER THE PLACE for you to check out. Seriously. Check out each thread on RPG forums where DMs or players complain about something not being right with their games. You'll find that a large chunk of these issues go back to this fallacy of "RPGs are stories".

Quote from: Benoist;465767I acknowledge that to you these lines aren't existent, but to me it's the whole point of talking about this : that it does matter for me in actual play. That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

From these preconceptions are derived so many boneheaded concepts like story arcs and railroading and "my players are not compliant with my grand scheme so I'll make them!" to writing novels through RPGs and submitting players to games where their characters can't do anything to affect the world, to game mechanics piling on to a point the make-believe is completely secondary to a type of game that's whatever isn't role playing, board game, cooperative writing, whatever ... the declinations of the fundamental mistake in conceiving RPG games as cooperative storytelling or narratives is ALL OVER THE PLACE for you to check out. Seriously. Check out each thread on RPG forums where DMs or players complain about something not being right with their games. You'll find that a large chunk of these issues go back to this fallacy of "RPGs are stories".

I thought Imperator made it very clear that he wasn't saying that the fact that a story emerged from an RPG had any implications AT ALL for what rules the RPG should have or what your objectives for/during play should be. I didn't read him as suggesting that RPGS "are" stories, simply that they involve an inevitable, intrinsic element of story.

The point he's making is fundamentally simple:- it's artificial to try to pretend that there is NO STORY in a roleplaying game or that a roleplaying game ever COMPLETELY avoids techniques of story. I completely agree with that assertion.

Imperator is not suggesting that the game ought to be devised or run in any kind of way which is derived from a story perspective. He's just saying really that the dividing line between storygames and immersive roleplaying games is inherently a bit blurry and that hostility to even the SLIGHTEST mention of "story" is misconceived. And that must be right.

Having said which I can also see where you're coming from in wanting to avoid the use of story terminology which could then be used as a false basis for pushing the game in more storygamey directions. But it seems to me that a better way for immersive roleplayers to explain the essence of their position, to make it more persuasive and more easily understood, is to acknowledge the inevitable element of story and explain what makes immersive gamers tick and why the element of story, though present, is not what's central to the game experience.

Quote from: Omnifray;465761Strictly speaking they are not stating their character's intentions nor what their character is trying to do. The players are stating the players' choices for their characters.

The ref could always overrule them and say - "sorry, the mind control effect means that your character does NOT wish to attack the Lich King". I'm not saying that that ought to be a regular occurrence.

But the players are not TELLING the story. They are merely in effect suggesting possible elements for it.

Also the PURPOSE of the player choosing his character's actions is not to NARRATE their outcome but simply to CHOOSE the actions - it's doing-by-speaking or an illocutionary act (which was discussed at great length on this forum a while back). In that sense too the players are not TELLING the story (narrating it). They are certainly INFLUENCING the story, but that's not the central purpose of what they are doing, which is simply to play the role of their characters.

(All of this of course is restricted to immersive roleplaying games as opposed to storygames.)

Well, you may have a point there, and I should mull a bit more over it, but I'm not persuaded that it represents a substantial difference in actual play. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I haven't found my immersion either difficulted or facilitated by either game,

Quote from: estar;465764I don't consider mechanics to help flesh out your character personality or life circumstances to be story mechanics. As they are background to when the campaign starts. Knowing what destroys your sorcerer's humanity is no difference than knowing that you served 4 terms in the Imperial Navy and that you are friends with the Grand Admiral.

Well, knowing that you are friends with the GA cannot end the game to your PC, as if you lose your last Humanity point.

Quote from: Benoist;465766I think the problem is the way you define an RPG here. It's all there. Your description of an RPG is correct, but it completely misses the point of the game itself, to me: to create the illusion that you are yourself in the make-believe, and to act in a world that is "real", or has the appearance of reality, to your mind's eye.

Well, we share that goal. But my experience has shown me that many people play RPGs (undoubtedly RPGs) for different reasons and that doesn't make their experiences less of an RPG.

QuoteIf you start by conceiving the game as a narrative, a story to be told, you play the game from a third person bird's eye point of view. You don't have this blurrying of the line going on because you have the constant input of authorial mechanics and a shitload of bullshit to constantly remind you that you player are manipulating your "little guy in the game".

But that is not exclusive of storygames: I've met many guys that essentially play themselves in a fantasy setting, and they still are RPGing. I don't think a player is not playing an RPG if he chooses to use third person to describe his PC's actions, and if you were to tell him that he's not playing D&D he would probably be very confused.

QuoteThat's not what I want to do when I play an RPG. I don't want to play with the strings of my character from an author's POV. I want to BE my character. I want to role play. Not write a novella.

Again, that is a goal I share. But acknowledging that there is a story in every game session does not automatically equal wanting to write a novel.

If you are running an ol' D&D sandbox game, in between sessions you will do some planning and preparations. If the players tell you that they want to explore the Old Temple of Weird Creepy Shit and retrieve Ye Olde Artifact of Doing Crazy Shit, you will probably spend some time mapping the place in detail, thinking about the denizens of the place (maybe there are factions and stuff), and creating some NPCs with backgrounds and shit. So you are creating a metric fuckton of story material right there: there is a story ready to spring as soon as the game starts, and you will probably make some decisions thinking on what sounds more fun. Those are probably dramatic decisions, as you are thinking not only in what is probable ("Can the bad guys have heard about the PCs last exploit?") but also what is more fun from the options you have.

Quote from: Benoist;465767I acknowledge that to you these lines aren't existent, but to me it's the whole point of talking about this : that it does matter for me in actual play. That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

From these preconceptions are derived so many boneheaded concepts like story arcs and railroading and "my players are not compliant with my grand scheme so I'll make them!" to writing novels through RPGs and submitting players to games where their characters can't do anything to affect the world, to game mechanics piling on to a point the make-believe is completely secondary to a type of game that's whatever isn't role playing, board game, cooperative writing, whatever ... the declinations of the fundamental mistake in conceiving RPG games as cooperative storytelling or narratives is ALL OVER THE PLACE for you to check out. Seriously. Check out each thread on RPG forums where DMs or players complain about something not being right with their games. You'll find that a large chunk of these issues go back to this fallacy of "RPGs are stories".

Quote from: Benoist;465767That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

Oh, I'm not arguing that. Some people like some things, some people will like others.

It is totally OK to say "I don't like metagamey stuff." An old player of mine likes CoC because it has no bennies whatosoever.

Quote from: Omnifray;465769I thought Imperator made it very clear that he wasn't saying that the fact that a story emerged from an RPG had any implications AT ALL for what rules the RPG should have or what your objectives for/during play should be. I didn't read him as suggesting that RPGS "are" stories, simply that they involve an inevitable, intrinsic element of story.

Exactly.

QuoteImperator is not suggesting that the game ought to be devised or run in any kind of way which is derived from a story perspective. He's just saying really that the dividing line between storygames and immersive roleplaying games is inherently a bit blurry and that hostility to even the SLIGHTEST mention of "story" is misconceived. And that must be right.

Exactly, you said it better than I.

I'm planning next Friday's 7th Sea game. PCs have wrecked some chaos into one of the bad guy's plans so he will push back. I have to think what he will do, how and why. Thinking about that, for me, is writing a story: the same thing you do when you are writing a book and you try to make a character's actions coherent with his personality.

Now, I don't know what will happen at the game. I only know where the game will start (as they are in a Castillian port trying to make some reparations to ther ship) what my NPCs will try to do (they owe some money to this mob boss and he wants it, and also they have a sect after them that has just known about their location), and I have some clues on what the players will try to achieve, but they can change their minds halfway there.

QuoteHaving said which I can also see where you're coming from in wanting to avoid the use of story terminology which could then be used as a false basis for pushing the game in more storygamey directions. But it seems to me that a better way for immersive roleplayers to explain the essence of their position, to make it more persuasive and more easily understood, is to acknowledge the inevitable element of story and explain what makes immersive gamers tick and why the element of story, though present, is not what's central to the game experience.

That is my point.

If the players have a goal, that goal becomes the plot of the story that is unfolding. In Ben's game, my PC is half-dead, in some strange limbo. And there's a story: the story of how Gareth got whacked by this cthulhoid monster and then he woke up in ths weird limbo and he's trying to find his way out and back to the reality he knew. My goal (as player and character) is to get out, and that is he plot of the story. Now, I'm sure that Ben hasn't planned this in terms of story arcs and shit but, heck, this situation is a story arc and it doesn't change the nature of the game.

I won't buy a game that forces me to make my games according to a literary structure, but there is a structure because our brains strive to create one. It is inmediate: the first chapter of Gareth's story is that in wich he meets other PCs, goes down a dungeon and gets his ass kicked. Chapter 2 is that in which he's in some freaky limbo trying to get out. It is the natural way of developing for such a situation, our brain starts automatically to structure it like that. The fact that neither Ben nor I planned the structure in advance (we didn't) does not make the structure less real.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465742What Ramon says is self-evident and common sense, and thus will be fiercely attacked by "trad game" and "storygame" lovers both.

No, no! This one time common sense will prevail! This tide is turning, the stars are right.

I can sort of see how an axis between "story game" and "trad games", it's not very meaningful to me and wouldn't want to game at either extreme - the former I find kind of shallow, the latter lacks soul, lacks poetry.

I'd go further and say while I enjoy imersion it needs to be tempered through the lens genre convention for. Without genre conventions providing a literary internal consistency the average game for me would quickly turn into "You want me to go WHERE and fight the WHAT? Are out of you freakin' mind?"

QuoteI don't understand how it can be done, such a clear separation.

To me, an RPG cannot be separated from a storytelling activity just because of basic human nature. We are narrative beings. We see stories everywhere, even where there are none, our brains strive to find patterns that can be acomodated into a coherent narrative, and if there are no patterns we will create some.

Sure, this is why a division of games is silly and a bad definition, whereas defining story gaming as something a player does is helpful and positive and always works in every situation. Nobody uses this definition, it would get in the way of screaming at each other so loudly that blood drips from their eyes.

But pretty much yep, I agree.