Quote from: 1of3;491784Now, that would be awkward indeed. DitV, PtA, Sorcerer, those are seen as the great examples of storygames. Actually, that's why people will say that storygames are just RPGs after all.

Montsegur 1244 and Fiasco, I can accept that there's a legitimate case to be made for saying that they are not roleplaying games, but purely storygames. I would probably say they are roleplay-ish storygames, because they do involve large elements of roleplay (and, which is sad in a way, often more than, say, a very battlegamey / wargamey game of D&D 3e).

Burning Wheel, on the other hand, from what I know of it (I've got the rules and started reading them but couldn't bear the author's writing style, and I've read about it online, but never played it) sounds like a storygamey roleplaying game, by which I mean it's a roleplaying game with storygamey elements to it. DitV probably the same (again, I've read some of the rules, read actual play reports, but never played it).

So you've got a spectrum, from the hypothetical and possibly more imagined than real concept of pure storygames (with no room for immersive roleplay at all) through roleplay-ish storygames, storygamey roleplaying games and finally trad roleplaying games.

On that analysis, for a game to be a pure storygame with no element of roleplay at all it would need to be one where you didn't identify with a particular character even for one continuous minute, but simply narrated the actions /dialogue of a number of characters at once... I've never actually come across a game where the players (rather than the GM) regularly did that...

Quote from: Peregrin;491789A lot of trad games are escapist, ...

That word - "escapist" - it's one of my pet hates, because it's a misnomer. You don't play a roleplaying game to escape from the real world. You play it to immerse yourself in character. Let's focus on what you're positively doing, not on what you're supposedly avoiding, getting away from or escaping. It's about the roleplay. You do it for the positive enjoyment of immersion, not for the relief of avoiding the real world. Life isn't so universally depressing or oppressive that every gamer who ever enjoys immersion can only be doing so as a means of escaping from having to face the godawful reality of their sad lives (!).

Quote from: Peregrin;491789Essentially what he was saying is that in a story-game, you can play and the game will take care of itself, insomuch as the game produces conflict and resolves them whether or not people are invested in their characters and the situations.  It replaces player-driven conflict with "automated" conflict.

Roll dice.  Figure out what happens based on dice.  Role-play merely to add color.  Next scene/conflict.

Well, yes. A lot of storygames seem to have that potential. That's what happens when you care about the shape/direction of the game's fictional events to the exclusion of caring about the "depth" of the experience, be it immersion in character or simply a deep sense of engagement with the game in other ways. It's the logical extreme end of the storygame-immersion spectrum.

At the extreme immersive end of the spectrum you get games where people are deeply immersed in character even at times when nothing particularly riveting is happening (and that does happen - just not as the exclusive focus of the game in most cases); at the extreme storygamey end of the spectrum you get games where people don't identify with their characters at all, don't have that feeling of "being there" and only care about the shape/direction of the fictional events of the game.

Both extremes can produce failed games. The immersive extreme because if you fail to ensure that the game's events take an interesting course people may well get bored which will then destroy their immersion; the storygamey extreme because if you don't feel a sense of ownership of your character or of "being there", the experience can be a very shallow, detached, disinterested, emotionally neutral one, which again can be boring. You can be bored because you're not sufficiently "into it" (the extreme storygamey end of the spectrum) or because there's no "it" to be into (the extreme un-storygamey end of the spectrum).

Well, kind of.

Quote from: Omnifray;491794That word - "escapist" - it's one of my pet hates, because it's a misnomer. You don't play a roleplaying game to escape from the real world. You play it to immerse yourself in character. Let's focus on what you're positively doing, not on what you're supposedly avoiding, getting away from or escaping. It's about the roleplay. You do it for the positive enjoyment of immersion, not for the relief of avoiding the real world. Life isn't so universally depressing or oppressive that every gamer who ever enjoys immersion can only be doing so as a means of escaping from having to face the godawful reality of their sad lives (!).

Escapism isn't always a negative thing.  We all do it from time to time.  Anything that doesn't engage themes and premises that we can relate to in terms of contemporary problems or issues is escapist.  If it doesn't address our world, it's escapist.  It just is -- all media that is only focused on being pure entertainment is.  It's not bad, we all need a break from time to time with our own hobbies or outlets.

Not all trad games are escapist, either, just quite a few.  Call of Cthulhu isn't escapist.  D&D is.

QuoteWell, yes. A lot of storygames seem to have that potential. That's what happens when you care about the shape/direction of the game's fictional events to the exclusion of caring about the "depth" of the experience, be it immersion in character or simply a deep sense of engagement with the game in other ways. It's the logical extreme end of the storygame-immersion spectrum.

At the extreme immersive end of the spectrum you get games where people are deeply immersed in character even at times when nothing particularly riveting is happening (and that does happen - just not as the exclusive focus of the game in most cases); at the extreme storygamey end of the spectrum you get games where people don't identify with their characters at all, don't have that feeling of "being there" and only care about the shape/direction of the fictional events of the game.

Both extremes can produce failed games. The immersive extreme because if you fail to ensure that the game's events take an interesting course people may well get bored which will then destroy their immersion; the storygamey extreme because if you don't feel a sense of ownership of your character or of "being there", the experience can be a very shallow, detached, disinterested, emotionally neutral one, which again can be boring. You can be bored because you're not sufficiently "into it" (the extreme storygamey end of the spectrum) or because there's no "it" to be into (the extreme un-storygamey end of the spectrum).

Well, kind of.

Unfortunately I can't address your post as-is since I don't buy into immersion as a key factor in game design.

Quote from: Peregrin;491796Escapism isn't always a negative thing.  We all do it from time to time.  Anything that doesn't engage themes and premises that we can relate to in terms of contemporary problems or issues is escapist.  If it doesn't address our world, it's escapist.  It just is -- all media that is only focused on being pure entertainment is.  It's not bad, we all need a break from time to time with our own hobbies or outlets.

Sometimes immersive roleplaying games can be more intense and difficult to deal with than the real world - I would hardly characterise playing such games as taking a "break"! Now that might be an issue for the player if he doesn't have the real-world time/resources to deal with playing a game to that level of intensity - but escapism is just the wrong word for it. It carries all the wrong sorts of implications. I'm not saying that playing these games can never be a form of escapism - for some of the people I've gamed with, that's all it is. But not for the full-on immersive gamers. For them it's something else, something positive.

Quote from: Peregrin;491796Unfortunately I can't address your post as-is since I don't buy into immersion as a key factor in game design.

mhm... I'm not saying it's a key conscious factor in game design in the sense that a game to be successfully designed has to be consciously designed with immersion in mind... I'm saying that two of the main things people enjoy about gaming are (1) the deep investment in the game which characteristically comes from some level of immersion in character - as that tends to produce levels of investment in the game far in excess of those produced by games without immersion in character, at least for many gamers, and (2) active and creative use of the imagination. You might disagree but personally I think it's worth thinking about.

Quote from: Omnifray;491800Sometimes immersive roleplaying games can be more intense and difficult to deal with than the real world - I would hardly characterise playing such games as taking a "break"!

Give me an example of such play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Omnifray;491800mhm... I'm not saying it's a key conscious factor in game design in the sense that a game to be successfully designed has to be consciously designed with immersion in mind... I'm saying that two of the main things people enjoy about gaming are (1) the deep investment in the game which characteristically comes from some level of immersion in character - as that tends to produce levels of investment in the game far in excess of those produced by games without immersion in character, at least for many gamers, and (2) active and creative use of the imagination. You might disagree but personally I think it's worth thinking about.

It's not that I don't see character-investment as important, I just think that it isn't so simple as immersing in them, and that the relationship between player and character involves a lot of meta-stuff as well.

Quote from: David R;491801Give me an example of such play.

Regards,
David R

When I was playing a vampire regent in a live action vampire game...

... when other vampire PCs tried to take my throne, I had a massive adrenaline rush / quicker heartbeat during the ensuing fight (this was a dice-based LARP, NOT a boffer-LARP - there was no physical action involved - it was just the fear/excitement which produced that physiological reaction)

... I would miss sleep thinking about the game and writing my "downtimes"

... when my character was killed although I was sad to see him go in a funny way I was kind of relieved to no longer be the one who had to deal with 4 apocalypses all happening at the same time, and I would still to this day (a couple of years on) be very reluctant to take on the role of prince/regent as any of my characters for some time to come! (maybe one day but not for a while... I needed a break from that stress!)

This is the strongest example but there are others I could give.

It's just a myth that what-are-called-storygames are short form/one shot games:

Dogs in the Vineyard is a long-form game, if you don't play a full campaign in which you return to towns more than once, you miss a whole section of the game.

In A Wicked Age has mechanics that don't even activate unless you play more than one session.

Universalis' token economy is made for long term play.

Burning Empires has three very long campaign sections for every time you make characters.

Houses of the Blooded and Blood & Honor both have season-long play segments in which events happen over the course of years.

Sorceror is a normal ole long campaign game.

Mortal Coil's magic creation system only comes into its own once you've played a significant period.

3:16's point doesn't even arise until the characters have done 5-10 missions and have been promoted high enough to start to see the game turn.

With Great Power only works with multiple "issues." (It's a comic book game.)

Capes has a long-form token economy.

Cold City/Hot War are both long-form games.

Don't Rest Your Head/Don't Lose Your Mind have a character arc that cannot really be paid off in 2-3 sessions, mechanically.

Full Light, Full Steam is similar.

Shotgun Diaries' diary mechanic doesn't activate in the short form game.

The Shadow of Yesterday has a Transcendence mechanic that's the endpoint of characters that don't die, and it doesn't turn on unless you've played a LONG time.

You're just starting from a really weird perspective that's totally off.  Story gaming (whether you use the common, wrong definition or my exquisitely perfect, precise definition) has no relationship whatsoever with game length or delayed gratification or whatnot.

Fiasco, Montsegur and a few others are short-form games with endings built in.  Then there are some mid-range games with endings built in but which last longer than 2-3 sessions, like Primetime Adventures or Dust Devils.  (Although Primetime Adventures also contains rules for changing over between multiple seasons, so that might not even fit in here either.)

(Also RE's "System Matters" essay has a lot of weird wrong stuff in it, and he later disclaimed that definition of "narrativism", though ironically, System Matters' definition is the definition most people think it is!)

And what you're describing with respect to the LARP is just stage adrenaline. Every actor feels it.  LARP has many elements of improv theater, when you're in the spotlight (as when you're targetted by the coup), you will have an adrenal reaction that heightens things (and also which makes the memories very vivid, though somewhat suspect, which is why you processed it later.)

Quote from: JDCorley;492234... my exquisitely perfect, precise definition...

Which you will kindly share with us?

Quote from: JDCorley;492234And what you're describing with respect to the LARP is just stage adrenaline. Every actor feels it.  LARP has many elements of improv theater, when you're in the spotlight (as when you're targetted by the coup), you will have an adrenal reaction that heightens things (and also which makes the memories very vivid, though somewhat suspect, which is why you processed it later.)

This at least I can definitively disagree with. I've had an adrenal reaction as you call it when I haven't been in the spotlight but have anticipated danger to my character. I've entered the game buzzing just because there was a risk of my character being jobbed. OK, so you could say it's anticipation of spotlight - but it's the danger to my character rather than being in the spotlight which does this to me. I'm in the spotlight all the time in other aspects of my life, and it doesn't do that for me. Adrenaline perhaps, but not on that scale.

In my experience, comparing one form of gaming after a couple of experiences with another of which you have years of history is often not all that accurate or useful, unless you are going out of your way to dismiss the former regardless.

FWIW I also prefer traditional gaming to story gaming, but I have had quite a lot of experience with both.

To me, story gaming is defined by an approach to gaming, it's not a way to classify a product.  Story gaming includes, for example, D&D play that's aimed at story.  This definition solves all grey zones and problems that players have, so therefore nobody accepts it, as they prefer to scream at each other until they start to sob.

Quote from: JDCorley;492688To me, story gaming is defined by an approach to gaming, it's not a way to classify a product.  Story gaming includes, for example, D&D play that's aimed at story.  This definition solves all grey zones and problems that players have, so therefore nobody accepts it, as they prefer to scream at each other until they start to sob.

Hey, JD, maybe the problem is with the people, not the categories, no?  I can't remember the last time anyone argued over video-game genres, or at the very least wasn't called out as being a fucktard for doing so.

But of course video-gamers are a lot less insular and carry a lot less baggage.

Then again, I'm not a fan of "You can play any way with anything!" because, IME, it's patently false no matter what type of medium you use for your gaming.  Is there overlap between types of games so you could potentially drift?  Sure -- see some of the smaller-scale PC game mods.  But some things are just better designed to handle certain types of play, and ignoring categorization because people tend to abuse it is still doing a disservice to people trying to find the type of game they want to play.

This is ignoring the fact that a lot of RPGs, whether trad, story-game, or whatever, basically amount to "an approach to playing RPGs."

Quote from: Peregrin;492739Then again, I'm not a fan of "You can play any way with anything!" because, IME, it's patently false no matter what type of medium you use for your gaming.  Is there overlap between types of games so you could potentially drift?  Sure -- see some of the smaller-scale PC game mods.  But some things are just better designed to handle certain types of play, and ignoring categorization because people tend to abuse it is still doing a disservice to people trying to find the type of game they want to play.

The range of inputs that a player of a typical RPG has is infinitely broader at any given moment than the range of inputs that a typical PC gamer has. Doom, a really good PC game, allows you to activate things, move, fire a gun, and switch guns.  Super Mario Brothers, one of the best video games of all times, allows you to move, jump, duck, and sometimes shoot fireballs.  The first time the GM says "the crotchety old man says 'I have a treasure map for you', what do you do?", you are in a position that no computer game can create, so categorizations of product are much harder to make than categorizations of play (or intent, or whatnot).

But yes, you're right, system does matter, at least somewhat.  

It just seems completely beyond insane and wrong into a realm of insane wrongness never before encompassed by the mind of man to say that D&D play aimed at story is not story gaming.  But that is what people try to insist, because they'd rather scream and screech and smash their heads into things.

I agree its harder to put the genie in the bottle.

Quote from: JDCorley;492740It just seems completely beyond insane and wrong into a realm of insane wrongness never before encompassed by the mind of man to say that D&D play aimed at story is not story gaming.  But that is what people try to insist, because they'd rather scream and screech and smash their heads into things.

Sure it's story-gaming, even though it may require moving beyond the creator's intentions.  

At some point, though, it changes the game.  Are you still playing D&D if you move beyond the game implied by the text?  From one gamer to another in casual conversation, sure, why not.  In meta-discussions about gaming and theory?  IMO, not really.

e:
For me, it's more about the individual game.  Not "are you storygaming?" but "are you playing D&D?"  I think "D&D" encompasses a larger range of games, though, basically all of adventure gaming.  So replace "D&D" with "adventure RPG."  Honestly something like "adventure RPG," "story RPG," etc, would be more useful to me, but that'd require people accept all of these games as RPGs.

Quote from: Peregrin;491802It's not that I don't see character-investment as important, I just think that it isn't so simple as immersing in them, and that the relationship between player and character involves a lot of meta-stuff as well.

But that doesn't mean immersion isn't a design consideration, just that you think immersion is more complex. This also probably boils down to how strict your definition of immersion is.

In my experience there aren't many mechanics that facilitate immersion for me, but there are mechanics that I find highly disruptive to my sense of immersion. The first time I really encountered this was with 4E. Something about the mechanics of combat and powers really dislodged my sense of being there. I know others have had the complete opposite experience though so I think it is a very personal thing.