I see a lot of people here put both types on the same sack, but I think they are different. In fact, I love a lot of the second type ones, but the first type never did anything for me. Also interesting to note is the fact that the second group is only called “storygames” here in theRPGsite - in my experience, they are called RPGs elsewhere.

Storygames: focus on shared narration or creation of stories collaboratively, making extensive use of meta-gaming rules and/or out-of-character stances. They may include traditional mechanics or stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Fiasco, Polaris, My Life with Master, Universalis, This Mortal Coil, Shock:, A Penny for My Thoughts, Once Upon a Time, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, etc.

“Storygames”: focus on roleplaying a fictional alter-ego, making extensive use of in-game rules and in-character stances. There may be meta-game rules and/or out-of-character stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Amber, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don’t Rest Your Head, 3:16, Fate, Agon, Freemarket, Houses of the Blooded (+Blood & Honor), Apocalypse World (+Dungeon World, Tremulus, Monster of the Week, Monsterhearts, The Regiment, Saga of the Icelanders, Ghost Lines, etc), Lady Blackbird, Mouse Guard, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Doctor Who, The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, The Mountain Witch, Sorcerer, Octane, Wushu, Primetime Adventures, Cold City (+Hot War), etc.


So, can we agree that those 2 groups have definite differences regarding the intended goals and experiences at the table, to allow a separate categorization ? Anyone else like one style but do not like the other ?

What is a stance? Can you describe this, or post a link to where this is described?

I've seen some other posters, here, that have provided some reasonable terms for this differentiation. (CRKrueger?). Shared Narrative game seems to cover the first category fairly well. Personally I would use Non-Traditional Rpg to define the latter, or Fictiongame, but I would need a clear definition of a stance to really be able to identify what they are. If you remove that term from your definition, those games sound like traditional Rpgs, which they are clearly not.

Sorry, K. By stance I meant its most simple and prosaic form really, as in-character or out-of-character / first-person or third-person. And I agree that "non-traditional roleplaying" is a good label for the second group.

Nice avatar, btw.

I would definitely agree there is a clear difference between Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which is a collaborative storytelling parlour game, or Once Upon a Time, a storytelling card game, and something like Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, which is an RPG with player narrative control.

However, I would see it as more of a continuum where you have RPGs with limited player narrative control at one extreme and story games with limited roleplaying at the other extreme.

I don't mind games at the limited narrative control end of the spectrum such as WFRP with its "get out of jail free" fate points.

Nice words, yojimbo. Definitely its more of a continuum than a clear separation. And I just added the Adventures of Baron Munchausen to the OP. Thanks.

And btw, I think the second group (or at least part of it) is what some people call New School nowadays.

I don't understand why DrWho is in that list. It's a bog- standard rpg.

Tristram, in Doctor Who: adventures in Time and Space the players can edit the in-game fiction by spendig Story Points. And its use is much more active than your average trad rpg "Hero point", or at least thats the impression Ive got from reading reviews.

Quote from: silva;675945Tristram, in Doctor Who: adventures in Time and Space the players can edit the in-game fiction by spendig Story Points. And its use is much more active than your average trad rpg "Hero point", or at least thats the impression Ive got from reading reviews.

Nah, it's not a fiction- editing device at all. It's just an adaptation of FASERIP's karma points. They are used to pull off 'power stunts' which just means the character can do a one-time extraordinary thing (like absorb the TARDIS power matrix or jiggery- pokey an alien detector from household items) . Despite the name, it's not a narrative device and the GM decides what's possible and how many points it would cost.

The story point section of the Gm guide is pretty involved. They are used for lots of different things in the game. They are described as potentially reality bending, and cover a range of uses, from improving your skill roll results to using certain devices (which have their own story points) to "bend[ing] the plot and manipulat[ing] the story". I think their main function is to keep characters alive. The GM has final say in their use and the section makes all the potential uses look more like suggestions than hard and fast rules (i imagine some groups might avoid using them to make an npc fall in love with one of the main characters, while others would totally go for that). It all seems designed to have it emulate the feel of the new doctor who series. This is my take on the story point mechanics at least.

It is a good game in my opinion. Personally I wouldn't call it a storygame. It feels like a regular rpg to me with some heavy cinematic mechanics. I suspect some might feel it crosses the line into storygame territory.

Personally I am getting tired of this storygame debate. This thread seems like it is all about re-ignite that debate. Maybe we should just talk about the individual games here instead?

Quote from: TristramEvans;675961Nah, it's not a fiction- editing device at all. It's just an adaptation of FASERIP's karma points. They are used to pull off 'power stunts' which just means the character can do a one-time extraordinary thing (like absorb the TARDIS power matrix or jiggery- pokey an alien detector from household items) . Despite the name, it's not a narrative device and the GM decides what's possible and how many points it would cost.

Tristram, the link I gave cites the "Story Points" it can be used for "editing" the fiction in various ways, from succeeding in a task, to making something appear out of this air, to make an NPC fall in love with you.

Quote from: silva;675905I see a lot of people here put both types on the same sack, but I think they are different. In fact, I love a lot of the second type ones, but the first type never did anything for me. Also interesting to note is the fact that the second group is only called "storygames" here in theRPGsite - in my experience, they are called RPGs elsewhere.

Storygames: focus on shared narration or creation of stories collaboratively, making extensive use of meta-gaming rules and/or out-of-character stances. They may include traditional mechanics or stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Fiasco, Polaris, My Life with Master, Universalis, This Mortal Coil, Shock:, A Penny for My Thoughts, Once Upon a Time, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, etc.

"Storygames": focus on roleplaying a fictional alter-ego, making extensive use of in-game rules and in-character stances. There may be meta-game rules and/or out-of-character stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Amber, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don't Rest Your Head, 3:16, Fate, Agon, Freemarket, Houses of the Blooded (+Blood & Honor), Apocalypse World (+Dungeon World, Tremulus, Monster of the Week, Monsterhearts, The Regiment, Saga of the Icelanders, Ghost Lines, etc), Lady Blackbird, Mouse Guard, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Doctor Who, The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, The Mountain Witch, Sorcerer, Octane, Wushu, Primetime Adventures, Cold City (+Hot War), etc.


So, can we agree that those 2 groups have definite differences regarding the intended goals and experiences at the table, to allow a separate categorization ? Anyone else like one style but do not like the other ?

I endorse this message. However, the second group most certainly are called storygames elsewhere on the net, just without the baggage of storygames not being thought of as RPGs.

What seems to happen on this site is that criticisms that only apply to group 1 are applied to group 2 as well by association. So we are told that fairly straightforward storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel are instead some completely different hobby akin to writing a novel or riding a bike because mumble mumble GM authority.

Quote from: silva;675967Tristram, the link I gave cites the "Story Points" it can be used for "editing" the fiction in various ways, from succeeding in a task, to making something appear out of this air, to make an NPC fall in love with you.

Ah, I see. I don't know if I have enough time to explain now, but I think you were misled a little. First off, it doesn't give 'editing powers' in that a player can't contradict what the GM says; they could however, if they were in a doctor's office ask " can I find a spare lab coat to wear as a disguise?" the GM may say yes, if the player is willing to spend a story point. But this is only because a) it's a likely item to find there ( a player could not make the same request in a gas station), B) it doesn't contradict the gm's description of the doctor's office , and c) it depends entirely on GM approval. A player could not spend points to have a costume appear out of thin air, and there is no assumed or predetermined plot/ narrative in the game to 'edit'. It can break the laws of reality, in that the Doctor could spendc 20 sps to 'reboot history' ( although Amy's player would still have to manage to remember him, before he could come back).its the flexible reality of space-time that's referring to.

Story Points are basically luck points. They're a meta-mechanic, sure, but no more so than Karma Points or Fate points in Top Secret, Warhammer, James Bond, MSH , Earthdawn or DCH.

Thread makes sense. Type 1 games aren't really my thing, type 2 games are.

Quote from: TristramEvans;676020It can break the laws of reality, in that the Doctor could spendc 20 sps to 'reboot history' ( although Amy's player would still have to manage to remember him, before he could come back).its the flexible reality of space-time that's referring to.

That was totally Amy's story point spend. The Doctor blew all his in the museum.

Quote from: SovietWhat seems to happen on this site is that criticisms that only apply to group 1 are applied to group 2 as well by association. So we are told that fairly straightforward storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel are instead some completely different hobby akin to writing a novel or riding a bike because mumble mumble GM authority.

Yup, pretty much this.

Quote from: TristramEvans;676020Ah, I see. I don't know if I have enough time to explain now, but I think you were misled a little. First off, it doesn't give 'editing powers' in that a player can't contradict what the GM says; they could however, if they were in a doctor's office ask " can I find a spare lab coat to wear as a disguise?" the GM may say yes, if the player is willing to spend a story point. But this is only because a) it's a likely item to find there ( a player could not make the same request in a gas station), B) it doesn't contradict the gm's description of the doctor's office , and c) it depends entirely on GM approval. A player could not spend points to have a costume appear out of thin air, and there is no assumed or predetermined plot/ narrative in the game to 'edit'. It can break the laws of reality, in that the Doctor could spendc 20 sps to 'reboot history' ( although Amy's player would still have to manage to remember him, before he could come back).its the flexible reality of space-time that's referring to.

Story Points are basically luck points. They're a meta-mechanic, sure, but no more so than Karma Points or Fate points in Top Secret, Warhammer, James Bond, MSH , Earthdawn or DCH.

Oh cool. That makes sense. Thanks for the explaination Tristram.

Quote from: BedrockBrendanPersonally I am getting tired of this storygame debate. This thread seems like it is all about re-ignite that debate.

My intention here is just to express a feeling that, contrary to what a lot of guys around here believe, those 2 types of games are in fact distinct, and are perceived like that by the majority of people everywhere on the net or in the meat world.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;675962Personally I am getting tired of this storygame debate. This thread seems like it is all about re-ignite that debate. Maybe we should just talk about the individual games here instead?

It's hilarious that some posters spend all their time crying over definitions and where certain game discussions go and yet don't talk about those games at all - just the definitions and where they go.

Kinda says that they're more interested in having a fight than actually discussing the games themselves - or perhaps they don't play them at all and just have a few pdfs on the old hard-drive...