Quote from: rgrove0172;980733These kinds of statements would be so much more effective if worded as a polite opinion and the absolutes were avoided.

. . . whines the passive-aggressive shit-stirring pantywaist.

Quote from: Celestial;980769In regards to the Skype tangent, Skype is crap for online gaming.  Try Wire or Mumble.  Both are much more reliable and sound better.

Mumble is great, have a server going on three years now.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980710It's really only on this site here that we always get "theRPGsite narrative dance" where people will claim games have no OOC elements, aren't created to provide any narrative elements, engage in some flavor of distinction denial, crying foul at some form of "narrative persecution" when someone attempts to state an opinion, etc.

Nah, happens on BGG/RPGG too. Just usually from the opposite end. Sometimes from the extreme opposite end.

I think the more common outlook here tends to be that narrative and more importantly a story is a natural outgrowth of the gameplay.
Gronan was punched in the nuts by Celerus because he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time by the players own action, or inaction.. Rather than no matter what Gronan does, such as wisely fleeing the country to the fabled Island of Concupiscent Redheads, Celerus is going to appear and punch Gronan in the nuts. Bonus points if the soon to be doubled over Gronan can't even leave the city, or the damn street because... STORY!

Quote from: Voros;980764Rather typically your criticism boils down to the fact that a true storygame (again no specifics or names of said game given) doesn't do what an RPG does. Kinda like saying 'this wine is a shitty beer!' or 'this video game isn't a good short story!' Seems to be missing the point, plus the half-hearted live and let live statement isn't really convincing after the insults, bile and political whining.

I am not here to convince you of anything. If you don't like live and let live, Paul McCartney has a song for you.

And you haven't been subject to .0001% of my bile.

The "storygamers" were the ones screeching "our wine is the best beer!" That's what made their whole bowel movement completely retarded. They made a new style of game. That's great. Go forth and play your new type of game. The insanity was that RPGs were supposed to be supplanted by their not-RPG games. D&D wasn't 1974's best new wargame. It was a completely different thing with its own concepts and own audience.

But its the same shit as the cRPG noise. Those aren't RPGs either.

It's amazing this is even a discussion.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980738As I said above, I think modules were the worst thing to ever happen to D&D.

Think of modules as going out to a restaurant and eating rather than cooking all that stuff yourself. Maybee because you cant cook. Maybee to save time. Maybee you like that places cooking better than your own. etc. And there are places that serve you great, and there are places that... dont.

But thats probably a subject for a different thread.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980705For me, the exemplary 'Story Game' is something like Fiasco or Once Upon a Time, where the actual gameplay targets the development of a story as the game's primary aim. There may be aspects that allow roleplaying along the way, but in actual fact, it is possibly to play these games without roleplaying much.

A roleplaying game, on the other hand has it's primary aim of playing the role of somebody in a fictionalised or virtual setting. It too can generate a story as a by product, but the degree in which this is important (which can vary from one game to another) is still secondary to the primary aim of simply interacting with the setting via a role you play.  

The notion of power structures within each game set up - as in collaborative design of a setting or shared responsibility for refereeing during the course of a game - are common features to both, but not definitive of one category or another.

So, Fiasco is a story-game which allows players opportunities to roleplay, and FATE is a roleplaying game with storytelling ambitions. That's the difference.

Here's the thing.

Suppose development of a story IS my primary aim. I just think AD&D is a better way to go about achieving that aim than playing, say, Once Upon A Time. I still use the exact same rules of AD&D. I play it faithfully, so there is a lot of role-play, because that's my method for developing a story collaboratively.

Games are activities. They are means. They are not ends. They are not tied to ends. Or aims. Or purposes. Or creative agendas. A game ostensibly written with one creative agenda in mind can be played by someone with a different creative agenda, and it can actually be just as fun if the game is any good.

Quote from: Lunamancer;980779Here's the thing.

Suppose development of a story IS my primary aim. I just think AD&D is a better way to go about achieving that aim than playing, say, Once Upon A Time. I still use the exact same rules of AD&D. I play it faithfully, so there is a lot of role-play, because that's my method for developing a story collaboratively.

Games are activities. They are means. They are not ends. They are not tied to ends. Or aims. Or purposes. Or creative agendas. A game ostensibly written with one creative agenda in mind can be played by someone with a different creative agenda, and it can actually be just as fun if the game is any good.

I'm sure that you could develop a story through the use of a chess set, but it's not the game's primary aspect.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980783I'm sure that you could develop a story through the use of a chess set, but it's not the game's primary aspect.

I kid you not. Over on BGG there were people claiming this some years ago. Probably still are.

Quote from: -E.;980706I like traditional -- but then I have positive connotations with the word (something "traditional" is often something that works. It's also something that hip young people rail against until they realize that it's a tradition because it works. Both of those are good things in my mind).

GNS committed innumerable crimes against the term Simulationism, so that it's almost useless. Which is a shame.

GDS-Simulationist made a lot of sense and is a very viable concept for diagnosing GMing decisions (you rule based on what you think would happen, even if that makes for a less interesting story or leads to an anticlimactic or overwhelming challenge).

GNS-Simulationism started as some kind of exploration of story and then devolved into something undefined because they couldn't pack all the negative things they had in mind into the "exploration" definition.

I thing GDS deserves more glory than it ever got, but I'd avoid using those terms as written since GNS really did a number on them.

Cheers,
-E.

LOL, yeah. This is a very incisive critique.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980770. . . whines the passive-aggressive shit-stirring pantywaist.

Sigh*

Rgrove, you're right.

Anyway. First off, the most story-gamey RPG I ever played was Houses of the Blooded. In the context of this game at least "story gaming" is almost the opposite of railroading. The GM cannot control which direction things are going at all, and that's part of the way the system works. The benefit is that the system promotes running with minimal to no prep time for the GM, and has a lot of tips for people who might otherwise find this difficult. It worked well for us. I would have thought that the players having some GM powers would have ruined immersion, but it didn't (I suppose same way you can get immersed in a character in a book, even if you know much more than that character would)

This sort of philosophy of RPG gaming is just counter to how many people here view that RPGs should be done. Which is a complete non-issue if you ask me. D&D remains the most popular RPG, so what's the loss if you/someone might try something different? If you call it an RPG (which it is if you ask me) or not is akin to arguing if a movie fits exactly in the horror movie genre or not or if it's more of a thriller. It's a game. Have fun with it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980808Sigh*

My apologies, Grover - I put you on Ignore a long time ago, and I thought I was replying to Voros.

The reply works either way, though.

I spent years upon years reading poster upon poster who slagged chance encounters, sandbox play, random chargen, no plot immunity, playing-to-find-out, develop-in-play, &c as  puerile, 'basic,' 'rollplaying,' right up until the hipsters and poseurs 'rediscovered' D&D and made it 'acceptable' to like the shit I've liked about roleplaying games since I was twelve. Anyone who says that 'trad' gamers or the OSR started this fight is full of shit straight up to their fucking worthless eyeballs.

Quote from: Trond;980818Rgrove, you're right.

Anyway. First off, the most story-gamey RPG I ever played was Houses of the Blooded. In the context of this game at least "story gaming" is almost the opposite of railroading. The GM cannot control which direction things are going at all, and that's part of the way the system works. The benefit is that the system promotes running with minimal to no prep time for the GM, and has a lot of tips for people who might otherwise find this difficult. It worked well for us. I would have thought that the players having some GM powers would have ruined immersion, but it didn't (I suppose same way you can get immersed in a character in a book, even if you know much more than that character would)

This sort of philosophy of RPG gaming is just counter to how many people here view that RPGs should be done. Which is a complete non-issue if you ask me. D&D remains the most popular RPG, so what's the loss if you/someone might try something different? If you call it an RPG (which it is if you ask me) or not is akin to arguing if a movie fits exactly in the horror movie genre or not or if it's more of a thriller. It's a game. Have fun with it.

Fun? Don't you know this a war? Geek War!

Quote from: Lunamancer;980779Suppose development of a story IS my primary aim. I just think AD&D is a better way to go about achieving that aim than playing, say, Once Upon A Time.

Yeah, much as I like Once Upon A Time... and it is a game about creating a story... I can't say many of the stories I've seen it generate are particularly good (though elements of it might be great).
The main motivation of the players is to gain and keep control of the storyline in order to get rid of cards in their hand and that does not in any way insure a good tale is told.
A retelling of the average D&D session would probably have a more cohesive plot with discernible cause and effect.

Quote from: Nexus;980824Fun? Don't you know this a war? Geek War!

Y'know, the question was asked and us "guys who hate narrative story elements" in our rpgs are just trying to answer...it's hard to go all kumbaya and answer the question at the same time...