As with a-lot of terms. The use and meaning of storytelling/story gaming has developed different meanings to different people, groups and especially factions.

One of the reasons there is the occasional flare of actual hate towards anything perceived as storytelling games is that there is a vocal faction of proponents for storytelling games that are borderline nuts. Some might argue a few are totally off their rockers. These types come across as unpleasant and some like to degrade and belittle standard RPGs. Some go totally insane at the idea of a GM having some sort of control over the session. Some want to do away with the GM alltogether.

Some of the ideas are valid and even fun. It is the WAY they go about it and how they treat traditional RPGers that throws things to hell. Other threads here and on "the other place" will display that if you hunt them down.

Personally I view a storytelling game as some others here do. It usually empowers the players and depowers the GM. It effectively makes each player a mini-GM.

More importantly the gameplay may not be about the group or the individuals in the traditional sense and the players are not really reacting to the environment so much as moving their personal agendas along. In some cases this can mean a player can override events somehow. Or override other players actions even in some cases.

But the main difference is that in a storytelling game is the play is about the story rather than the adventure as it were.

IE: "Grond sets out on an epic adventure to avenge his parents finally meets and slays the king." as opposed to "Grond set out on an adventure and met some kobolds. Stuff happened."

The players railroad the adventure, to some degree. Is the feel you might get?

Lots of variance in approaches.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415I haven't yet read the article you posted, but I'll do so soon. But, could you identify one or two solid-no-doubts-no-hybrid-straight-up-total storygames?  I'll then go ahead and check them out.

Fiasco, Once Upon a Time, and Psi*Run are examples that jump to mind.

OUAT is a game which nobody would mistake for an RPG. You have a hand of cards describing various narrative elements. While playing the game you tell a story and play cards from your hand when those narrative elements appear in the story. Your goal is to play all of your cards and conclude with your "Happily Ever After" card, but the other players can steal control of the story from you by using their cards (in various ways).

Fiasco looks more like an RPG because everyone in the game is controlling a specific character (just like everyone in Clue controls a specific character; but Clue isn't an RPG, either). Its mechanics, however, are pure STG: They determine who establishes a scene and who chooses how to close a scene. These decision, in turn, control who gets dice (and the color of those dice). And there are more mechanics surrounding those dice which allow you to control complications which get introduced to the narrative and so forth.

You'll note that in both of these games, the mechanical decisions you're making (when to play a card; what type of dice to take or receive; what complications are being introduced to the game world) aren't being made from the perspective of your character: They're narrative decisions.

Psi*Run looks even more like an RPG: It's got a GM and players each controlling a single character. But, once again, the mechanics largely aren't associated with the game world and, therefore, the mechanical decisions you're making aren't roleplaying decisions. (The players are expected to roleplay their characters, but the mechanics of the game don't have anything to do with roleplaying. Similarly, you can roleplay as your character during a game of Arkham Horror, but Arkham Horror isn't a roleplaying game.) For example, the major action resolution mechanic in Psi*Run requires the player to make a bunch of different decisions that will affect the content of the narrative in ways which have nothing to do with their individual character.

(It's a really interesting mechanic, though. Definitely worth checking out!)

QuoteSo, 1st-person vs. 3rd-person is tangential, but in-character vs. out-of-character decision making is relevant?

That's my read on it, yes.

Similarly, I occasionally act in local theater. When discussing their roles, some actors talk about their characters in the first person. ("In this moment, I really feel like I want to blah blah blah.") Other actors will talk about their characters in the third person. ("In this moment, I really like Bob wants to blah blah blah.") It definitely represents a different way of approaching and processing the act of playing a character, but both approaches are fundamentally aiming at the same goal.

Quote from: Omega;715435One of the reasons there is the occasional flare of actual hate towards anything perceived as storytelling games is that there is a vocal faction of proponents for storytelling games that are borderline nuts. Some might argue a few are totally off their rockers. These types come across as unpleasant and some like to degrade and belittle standard RPGs. Some go totally insane at the idea of a GM having some sort of control over the session. Some want to do away with the GM alltogether.

I should say though, these are quickly becoming the minority. Most storygamers now acknowledge the clear difference between RPGs and storygames, and aren't bothered by it in the slightest. See my sig for reference, nobody except a few lunatics are seriously trying to compare the two any more. These are clearly different endeavours.

Which is great news!

Quote from: Ladybird;715381A bunch of people are Very Very Upset that other people play RPG's in a different way to them, and that there might be RPG's designed for people and play styles they don't personally like.

Cue years of stupid butthurt arguments, and communities more interested in a game's adherence to orthodoxy than whether it's fun or not, or even whether they're in the target audience for it.

Some other people are not at all upset about variety in game types but prefer that an apple be called an apple and an orange an orange. Narrative rpgs are different from traditional rpgs. I happen to enjoy both types depending on mood. Those without an agenda can recognize the differences without hating either game form. Those who want to 'make the whole rpg world narrative or traditional ' or pretend there are no differences have such an agenda.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415For instance, every mechanical and descriptive decision I've made for my Halfling Burglar in the Torchbearer game I'm currently playing has been 100% based on "what my character would do".

What kind of mechanical and descriptive decisions? Every player usually decides what his or her character looks like. Deciding on other elements of the world generally isn't 'in character' unless the character is actually in a position to do so. For example, if your halfling buys his dream hobbit hole and decorates it to his taste then you are making an in-character decision regarding the description of your abode.

The rest of the world, as with ours, simply exists as it is, until your character acts to change it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;715386As far as your own approach goes, I'm quite the opposite; I'm militantly insistent on 1st-person at my table.  My invariable reaction to "I tell the NPC to ..." is to tap my chest and say "I'm right here.  Tell me."  No one sucks at acting enough to be incapable of delivering first-person dialogue to another human being: those of us who aren't hermits or Trappist monks do so every day of ours lives.

Yeah I just don't get the sheer number of people who seem to be able to lead normal lives that somehow can't just speak plainly to other people during a game. I understand that some would be quite uncomfortable doing a character voice, but regular speech doesn't seem like too much to ask for a social based game of lets pretend.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415This seems like an o.k. distinction; but I haven't seen anything that precludes or obviates mechanical decisions corresponding to the decisions my character is making for any of the character-driven/narrative games I've read and/or played in.

For instance, every mechanical and descriptive decision I've made for my Halfling Burglar in the Torchbearer game I'm currently playing has been 100% based on "what my character would do".

Are you making any other types of decisions as a player of Torchbearer? For example do you decide, with other players and the referee, the layout of a town, dungeon, or wilderness?

Understand it is a question of focus. In a tabletop RPG the ONLY decisions you can make as a player are those things that your character can do.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415I'm really not trying to be dense here; maybe it's just that my limited experience with "storygames" has so far been pretty much limited to Burning Wheel games, Sorceror, and Fate. Perhaps those are too hybridy/impure to make the distinction clear.

Sorceror (and Dogs in Vineyard) are indie games that try to promote themselves as "storygames" but in practice play like a session of D&D using the the old Dragonlance module or the original Ravenloft. I.e. the games resolve around a tightly defined plot heavy and scenario and emphasis a lot of roleplaying as in acting as a different character. Generally using lite mechanics.

Fate is a freeform lite rules engine designed to get a campaign going fast from concept to play. It does this by boiling down most actions into one of four possible outcome. Attack, Defend, Create an Advantage, Overcome an obstacle. Coupled with Fate Points which give a reroll or +2 to players and referee for making stuff on the fly that make sense in terms of what is going in the environment or character.

Burning Wheels has a lot of formal mechanics collaborative worldbuilding. That as far as I got into the games.

Are they storygames?  Well they involve more metagaming than GURPS, D&D, Hero System, Harnmaster, etc. That for sure. But they can all be run in a traditional fashion.

In the end it is a matter of focus not mechanics. Even D&D can be a story game if that how the campaign is run.

If in a campaign you are making most of your decision as a player and not as your character then likely you are playing a story game. If your make most of your decisions as the characters and not as a player then you are playing a traditional tabletop RPG.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415I haven't yet read the article you posted, but I'll do so soon. But, could you identify one or two solid-no-doubts-no-hybrid-straight-up-total storygames?  I'll then go ahead and check them out.

Once upon a Time is a clear example of a storygame. A game of collaborative storytelling.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Games-AG1250-Once-Upon/dp/1887801006

On more comment

I been refereeing 30+ years. In the mid 90s Lion Rampart the makers of Ars Magica released Whimsy Cards. Which are cards with general plot points. A card holder with the approval of the players and referee can "make up something" that fits the plot point and what is going and introduce it into the game.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/cards/whimsycards.html

We all thought it was a good idea and used throughout the spring and summer one year in the mid 90s. We stopped because it was distracting, got silly, and broke the immersion of playing the character.

We didn't like having to think about looking for a plot point to use the card in addition to playing our character. One moment we are thinking as a player then next as the character. At first it was fun and then it grew ... distracting.

The group was a bunch of mature and smart guys but when you start piling on whimsy cards the end result was a series of wildly improbable events that came off as silly. The culminated in what called the Day of the Whimsy War where in the middle of session 6 players played their cards in a single encounter resulting a wildly improbable and hilarious series of events. What made it funnier is that the individual events were pretty much were straight and serious. The combination however was not. So we put them away after that.

Six months ago I ran a Fate game with some of the same players and some new guys that are not part of my group. Afterwards we came to the same conclusion in regards to fate points and stunts.

For a light hearted free form game something like Fate works great. I don't see it working well for something gritty or risky like low fantasy.

I have some strong feelings on the subject that I shall share later as time permits. For now, I'll just welcome you and say that it was nice chatting with you in #rpgnet as well.

Quote from: estar;715490Six months ago I ran a Fate game with some of the same players and some new guys that are not part of my group. Afterwards we came to the same conclusion in regards to fate points and stunts.

For a light hearted free form game something like Fate works great. I don't see it working well for something gritty or risky like low fantasy.

Well, that's not my experience.  I've run some relatively gritty games in it, and it's worked fine.  I've also run less gritty games and it's worked fine.  I don't doubt your experience at all, but it's not universal.

Do you mean 'fate points and aspects'?  Because stunts are basically like feats/advantages in other systems.  I don't see where they'd get 'out of control' in any way.

Quote from: Ladybird;715381A bunch of people are Very Very Upset that other people play RPG's in a different way to them, and that there might be RPG's designed for people and play styles they don't personally like.

Cue years of stupid butthurt arguments, and communities more interested in a game's adherence to orthodoxy than whether it's fun or not, or even whether they're in the target audience for it.

Too damn right ... it's a pervasive enough attitude to form one of my Gaming Geek Fallacies.

Quote from: robiswrong;715575Well, that's not my experience.  I've run some relatively gritty games in it, and it's worked fine.  I've also run less gritty games and it's worked fine.  I don't doubt your experience at all, but it's not universal.

Do you mean 'fate points and aspects'?  Because stunts are basically like feats/advantages in other systems.  I don't see where they'd get 'out of control' in any way.

Going by Legends of Anglerre, the stunts in FATE 3.0 aren't my cup of tea, but that's precisely because they remind me of opening a D&D 3e book. So I think you're right, there. But I'm sure I'd feel as Rob does about the fate points/aspects/tagging stuff.

I think you can play games with metagame or narrative-control mechanics without having them go off the deep end, provided the players are committed to respecting, reinforcing, and maintaining the integrity of the setting.

The problem is that characters really couldn't give a damn about setting integrity—they have their own goals. So if you hand narrative-control mechanics to a player who works from an in-character point-of-view, they'll be conflicted between keeping things level and seeking whatever advantages they can get away with. If no one puts their foot down, you drift off toward gonzo. If the group collectively steps in, the internal mental conflict of the player who's called on to self-police may well be externalized into a kind of passive-agressive intra-group dynamic. ("Oh, yes, you're perfectly free to narrate that bizarre plot twist. We'd really, really, really, really prefer you didn't, but don't let us stop you. Your creativity must be given flight! No matter how stupid we think it is.") If someone then puts their put down to stop the nonsense, now you've got a traditional GM again.

Granted, there are metagame social controls in traditional gaming as well--from the player who avoids splitting the party even when it would be the most logical thing for their character to do, to the GM who's (at very least) open to player input on how a situation should play out. But the principle of having a GM as the final authority seems to work better for IC-POV.

Quote from: Arminius;715699Going by Legends of Anglerre, the stunts in FATE 3.0 aren't my cup of tea, but that's precisely because they remind me of opening a D&D 3e book. So I think you're right, there. But I'm sure I'd feel as Rob does about the fate points/aspects/tagging stuff.

Can't speak about Legends of Anglerre.  My understanding is it's one of the least "Fate-like" Fate games.

Quote from: Arminius;715699The problem is that characters really couldn't give a damn about setting integrity—they have their own goals. So if you hand narrative-control mechanics to a player who works from an in-character point-of-view...

I think perhaps you overestimate the amount of 'narrative control' in Fate?  It's not really 'narrative' in the GNS sense of the word, Fred Hicks has pretty much said that he considers Fate to be a good argument against GNS

Realistically, my experiences with Fate have been that the GM role is still pretty much a mostly traditional GM role, and the player role is still pretty much a traditional player role.  The GM still gets to say no The vast majority of the time, you're playing from the character POV.  The times when you're *not*, you're still almost always dealing with your character's actions anyway.

The kind of massive, world-and-plot editing stuff that I hear get bandied about is just something I haven't witnessed in Fate games - whether it's games I've run, or games I've played in, including on Google+.

And as a Fate GM, I have *zero* problem telling players "no, that's not going to happen."  And as a Fate player, I have *zero* problem being told "no, that's not going to happen."

Again, this is based on my experience specifically with Fate (I have no idea how Whimsy Cards would play out, and wouldn't comment on that).  I have seen similar "gonzo" things happen with other games - specifically Fiasco and  Penny For My Thoughts.  But it hasn't really been an issue in any Fate games I've played in.  Part of that may be that Fate character creation invests players in the world more than the more typical 'bring your character and I'll tell you what the world is about' kind of stuff - I'm not sure.  I just know that I don't see it happening in actual play.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715484Some other people are not at all upset about variety in game types but prefer that an apple be called an apple and an orange an orange. Narrative rpgs are different from traditional rpgs.

This really can't be emphasized strongly enough. The distinction between a roleplaying mechanic and a narrative control mechanic is really significant: They are literally trying to accomplish different things. And whether you're a designer looking to create a mechanic or a GM/player looking to use a mechanic, understanding the difference is really crucial to your success.

I've seen STGs run like RPGs and I've seen RPGs run like STGs. Some of these games are stylistically similar enough that this can be managed with a fair degree of success; but you're still generally trying to use a hammer to secure a screw.

Fuck this noise. This forum HAS a working search engine.

Quote from: estar;715490For a light hearted free form game something like Fate works great. I don't see it working well for something gritty or risky like low fantasy.

It's built for fast paced action oriented games, but it can do low fantasy without any problems. It worked great for our clockwork and steam three musketeers game, and we had a great Dresden Files run. Our Deadlands Fate game was pretty gritty.

We don't have any problems with players not caring about the integrity of the setting. Things don't get zany because we put a little trust in the players, but if it did, the group would stomp on them until they stopped being an idiot. But, I've really not seen much of this occur in play.

I'll just +1 Robiswrong on Fate. And, LoA is very different from other Fate.

Quote from: TristramEvans;715722Fuck this noise. This forum HAS a working search engine.

Yet you still felt the need to post.