If I can understand why a game was designed the way it was, it saves me a lot of trouble figuring it out as a GM.  So if the author is explicit about their goals for the game, it saves me the trouble of trying to hack away bits that don't work for my own goals.

Granted, I don't usually break it down by story-game vs RPG, but I do like knowing what the game is "about", in a broad sense, and that can help me determine if I'll like it or not.

Frex, RuneQuest 2e was about your character living in and exploring Glorantha
D&D is about going on adventure in exotic locations and being rewarded for being bold and prudent
Call of Cthulhu is about investigation and characters facing horrors that destroy their mind
Burning Wheel is about challenging the characters' beliefs
Sorcerer is about dealing with dysfunctional relationships and the stories that come out of that
Unknown Armies is about exploring the psychological makeup of your character in a fucked up occult underground
FATE games are about lots of color and celebrating character through play (with some themes tacked on after-the-fact depending on the genre/universe you're emulating)

Those things, along with the mechanics presented, tell me a lot more about how play is going to be than a vague "story-game" label.

Quote from: Benoist;465766I 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.

No it isn't, not to you, you think that if someone plays a Dragonlance module, that they're not playing D&D. You think that there is a line in the sand and ANY attention to story, ANY desire for story, the very existence of the word "story" in someone's gaming vocabulary forever taints what they do, period.

You remember. You told me so.

Idk, Corley.  Procedures for play do change the game being played.  I wouldn't say "it's not D&D" because the statement is a bit extreme, but the type of play expected when playing through the Dragonlance modules is quite a bit different than older D&D play.

Quote from: Imperator;465777I'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.

You are writing plot not story. A novelist uses his plot to write a story. For you the plot is a plan of action that will promptly get wrecked by the PCs.

A good plot will help you understand the range of possibilities and leave you prepared for what the players actually do.  Also as you come to know your group, you will find that much of what they is predictable.

Quote from: Imperator;465777Now, I don't know what will happen at the game. I only know where the game will start ...

That exactly what happens with Tabletop RPG Plot

Quote from: Peregrin;465787Idk, Corley.  Procedures for play do change the game being played.  I wouldn't say "it's not D&D" because the statement is a bit extreme, but the type of play expected when playing through the Dragonlance modules is quite a bit different than older D&D play.

Sure! I absolutely agree that you can have many different approaches to D&D, or to most other RPGs. Some of these might be called story approaches, and thus "story gaming". Thus, I have no problem differentiating between Dragonlance module D&D play where the players are interested in creating story and D&D play (of whatever setting and material) where players have no such interests. Benoist has solved this problem by going insane and saying that they're not playing D&D at all if they have even the faintest hint of an interest in story.

There are even some RPGs that don't really support more than one approach, they're extremely non-flexible and only do one thing. But making decisions about how to classify things by looking at them is trying to evaluate all video games by looking very closely at whatever the latest Madden shovelware is.

Quote from: JDCorley;465786No it isn't, not to you, you think that if someone plays a Dragonlance module, that they're not playing D&D.

You always forget the "as written" part. Reading comprehension is your friend. I told you that someone who plays a Dragonlance module by the book, as written, is in essence not playing D&D. I totally stand by those words.

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.

Then he is fundamentally misunderstanding the point of such debates. Nobody discusses the fact that a story emerges after the fact from a role playing game session, a story you can tell to your buddies at the pub once the game's been played.

The whole debate about narratives and story concepts in role playing games centers around the conception of play itself as collaborative storytelling, which inspires game design, adventure and campaign structures, and ultimately how the game unfolds. That's the whole point.

So OK, fine, it's not what Ramon's talking about, but then it's no wonder he doesn't understand guys like me who have such problems : because I'm not talking about what he's talking about, then.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465782I 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.

Actually, if you remove all the story from D&D, the game becomes just that boardgame thing that people has always accused D&D of being.

Quote from: Peregrin;465785Granted, I don't usually break it down by story-game vs RPG, but I do like knowing what the game is "about", in a broad sense, and that can help me determine if I'll like it or not.

Of course, that is a useful information. Then, I don't see how saying "is a trad RPG" or "is a storygame" gives any useful information.

Quote from: estar;465788You are writing plot not story. A novelist uses his plot to write a story. For you the plot is a plan of action that will promptly get wrecked by the PCs.

Fair enough. I think this may be a language thing. For me, the difference between plot and story is not that big.

Quote from: Benoist;465792You always forget the "as written" part. Reading comprehension is your friend. I told you that someone who plays a Dragonlance module by the book, as written, is in essence not playing D&D. I totally stand by those words.

Wow. How are they not playing D&D? Of course they are. There's a DM; funny dice, monsters to slay, XPs, the works. Yeah, the modules may be shitty, but shitty modules are also part of the game.

Quote from: Benoist;465794Then he is fundamentally misunderstanding the point of such debates. Nobody discusses the fact that a story emerges after the fact from a role playing game session, a story you can tell to your buddies at the pub once the game's been played.

The whole debate about narratives and story concepts in role playing games centers around the conception of play itself as collaborative storytelling, which inspires game design, adventure and campaign structures, and ultimately how the game unfolds. That's the whole point.

So OK, fine, it's not what Ramon's talking about, but then it's no wonder he doesn't understand guys like me who have such problems : because I'm not talking about what he's talking about, then.

I fully agree.  This is the difference between emergent stories (most trad games) and intentional stories (most, well, storyteller games).

I don't even really have a problem with White Wolf's take on the mixture.  I don't much care for it, but it seems to work pretty well on the whole.  It's most of the storygames that are reviled around here where I take exception.  The ones that I have looked over are glorified writer's workshop tools.  The players or characters don't even run the risk of the adventures they describe.  Is it a pleasant evening of enjoyment?  For the people who like it, there is no doubt.  What it lacks, however, is the element of game.  Sure, in the very broadest sense of game, they have certain elements; we are on the border of losing any meaningful definition of game at the point where they intersect.

As examples from the other end of the spectrum, later editions of D&D and almost all editions of Warhammer have too much game.  Warhammer is far, far too lethal, while D&D has become waaaay too fiddly, dragging combat out to hours for even a fairly simple engagement.

People can drag out the nostalgia canard all day long; it's mostly just a dodge.  For me, the vintage games managed to hit the balance just about exactly, while allowing plenty of wiggle room to play the game however you wanted.

Quote from: StormBringer;465805I fully agree.  This is the difference between emergent stories (most trad games) and intentional stories (most, well, storyteller games).

Well, of course you cannot have a story fully planned before the game, that's silly, your players won't behave as expected. But you definitely plot before the game. And that is a story element, even if it doesn't unfold like you expected. And it is not a terrible thing.

QuotePeople can drag out the nostalgia canard all day long; it's mostly just a dodge.  For me, the vintage games managed to hit the balance just about exactly, while allowing plenty of wiggle room to play the game however you wanted.

Two things:

1) Dude, my favourite game is RQ3. Vintage games rock, and as etsar has said many times (and I agree) the fact that a game is old doesn't make it more or less fun.

2) The nostalgia canard is a real phenomenon: is not the only reason for some people to like old games (my own case, Ben's or yours) but I see in many OSR people a lot of mental contortions to try and convince themselves that somehow the limitations of old games are features. Which aren't. Those limitations are not features produced by a conscious effor of the designer to achieve some designer goal. Those limitations exist because no one knew what they were doing and most probably hey didn't give a shit. Which is 110% OK in my book and I love it. But please, let's be honest: there's a lot of ill-conceived nostalgia in many OSR posts around the web, and a lot of the "everything was better wen I was young" attitude which is utter bullshit. I'm not aiming this specifically at you or Ben, by the way, it's more a general feel I'e got browsing many OSR websites and messageboards and the like.

Quote from: StormBringer;465805I don't even really have a problem with White Wolf's take on the mixture.

World of Darkness games are fascinating regarding this debate, because for all the talk about Storytelling and all, what you got is a bunch of very traditional games, which were played by the vast majority of gamers as traditional games. Hence the disconnect, the way many look at White Wolf modules/adventures and wonder what the fuck they had been smoking when writing such pieces of shit : because when most people played trad games with their games, they enacted their actual storytelling logic onto the adventures, and thus the contrast showed sharply between those, on one side, and the rules and sandbox by Night books, on the other.

It's fascinating, really.

Quote from: Imperator;465803Wow. How are they not playing D&D? Of course they are. There's a DM; funny dice, monsters to slay, XPs, the works. Yeah, the modules may be shitty, but shitty modules are also part of the game.

They are not playing D&D as discussed between the covers of the PH and DMG. I let you read for yourself from there.

As for funny dice, monsters to slay and XPs, those are present in MB's HeroQuest too. I guess that makes it D&D, then?

Quote from: Imperator;4658122) The nostalgia canard is a real phenomenon: is not the only reason for some people to like old games (my own case, Ben's or yours) but I see in many OSR people a lot of mental contortions to try and convince themselves that somehow the limitations of old games are features. Which aren't. Those limitations are not features produced by a conscious effor of the designer to achieve some designer goal. Those limitations exist because no one knew what they were doing and most probably hey didn't give a shit. Which is 110% OK in my book and I love it. But please, let's be honest: there's a lot of ill-conceived nostalgia in many OSR posts around the web, and a lot of the "everything was better wen I was young" attitude which is utter bullshit. I'm not aiming this specifically at you or Ben, by the way, it's more a general feel I'e got browsing many OSR websites and messageboards and the like.

Just speaking for myself, I play AD&D now, I like its game play, aesthetics, the whole lot of it, now. The way I played AD&D twenty plus years ago is not something I feel much nostalgia for, except my very first games, probably, because these were played with a really good DM who "got the game", though I wasn't able to understand that at the time.

So. To me, most "limitations" people keep talking about are features. I'm looking now at the game in a way I was not twenty years ago. And my gaming's better for it. I wish everyone would be able to see what I see, but that's not the case. I'm fine with that. Just don't tell me it's illusionism on my part (I mean in general - I know you're not accusing me of doing that yourself). It's not.

Quote from: Benoist;465821World of Darkness games are fascinating regarding this debate, because for all the talk about Storytelling and all, what you got is a bunch of very traditional games, which were played by the vast majority of gamers as traditional games.

Wordy McWord.

Quote from: Benoist;465822They are not playing D&D as discussed between the covers of the PH and DMG. I let you read for yourself from there.

Well, but then again that is limiting yourself to your favourite edition of choice, because they were totally playing AD&D according to 2nd edition. Yeah, I know, AD&D 2nd ed is bound with newborn babies' foreskins and all that.

QuoteAs for funny dice, monsters to slay and XPs, those are present in MB's HeroQuest too. I guess that makes it D&D, then?

Well, I've done a lot of heavy roleplaying with Advanced HeroQuest, and we definitely played an absolutely rocking campaign for more than a year, with lots of character development. So yeah, why not?

It's all in how you use the tool.

Quote from: Benoist;465824Just speaking for myself, I play AD&D now, I like its game play, aesthetics, the whole lot of it, now. The way I played AD&D twenty plus years ago is not something I feel much nostalgia for, except my very first games, probably, because these were played with a really good DM who "got the game", though I wasn't able to understand that at the time.

So. To me, most "limitations" people keep talking about are features. I'm looking now at the game in a way I was not twenty years ago. And my gaming's better for it. I wish everyone would be able to see what I see, but that's not the case. I'm fine with that. Just don't tell me it's illusionism on my part (I mean in general - I know you're not accusing me of doing that yourself). It's not.

I'm happy for you, and I also pretty much feel the same. Tht is why I love S&W WB, and I'm enjoying LotFP. The OSR has been good to me, as the indie games, as WW, and as most gaming events throughout my life.

The illusionism you mention is not something I find in genuinely enthusiastic guys like you: but is definitely there in many places all over the web. Appreciating the goodness in old games (and there's lots of it) should not lead us to acritically accept their limitations, and I find lots of Gygax worshipping, lots of treating 1e DMG as the fucking Gospel and it's nonsensical. Yeah, it's a great book, no doubt about it.

Quote from: Imperator;465828Well, but then again that is limiting yourself to your favourite edition of choice, because they were totally playing AD&D according to 2nd edition. Yeah, I know, AD&D 2nd ed is bound with newborn babies' foreskins and all that.

Well yeah, of course it is. Never noticed the smell of dead babies exuding from your shelf?

And yeah, I'll totally own up to that: this statement is based on a defined approach of D&D's game play. No question about it. It's not about the stickers on the books or whatnot. It's precise.

Quote from: Imperator;465828Well, I've done a lot of heavy roleplaying with Advanced HeroQuest, and we definitely played an absolutely rocking campaign for more than a year, with lots of character development. So yeah, why not?

It's all in how you use the tool.

OK, seen that way I would actually agree it can be played as an RPG. Just like you can play a trad game as a storytelling/narrative game, or like you can in theory (never done it myself, unless you count WoD games as narrative games, which I wouldn't) use some overtly narrative game as a role playing game, or use monopoly and role play the shoe or car on the board, you can actually use HeroQuest and Advanced as role playing games.

Man, I always wanted to gather a bunch of HeroQuest boards, pile five of them on top of one another and play a huge three dimensional dungeon that way. That would have been cool. One day, perhaps!

Quote from: Imperator;465828I'm happy for you, and I also pretty much feel the same. Tht is why I love S&W WB, and I'm enjoying LotFP. The OSR has been good to me, as the indie games, as WW, and as most gaming events throughout my life.

The illusionism you mention is not something I find in genuinely enthusiastic guys like you: but is definitely there in many places all over the web. Appreciating the goodness in old games (and there's lots of it) should not lead us to acritically accept their limitations, and I find lots of Gygax worshipping, lots of treating 1e DMG as the fucking Gospel and it's nonsensical. Yeah, it's a great book, no doubt about it.

The problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the guy who's genuinely enthusiastic about this or that game, where that other guy just wants to get some OSR creds through fake enthusiasm. It's hard to tell which is which in practice, isn't it? I mean, you take guys like me or DungeonDelver, right? I mean, it's hard to be more hardcore about the First Ed game than Bill, to be honest. But it's always made sense to me, from as far as I can remember him posting on ENWorld years and years ago. I don't understand why people think he's a troll. He's not. He's just a guy who knows what he likes and knows what he dislikes and has no problem talking about which is which. Which is cool with me.

One day I'm going to make him admit that 3rd ed and First ed have more in common than meets the eye though. Hehe.