The idea behind storygames seems straightforward to me. Using a game as a means for collaborative storytelling.

In contrast RPGs are about experiencing an imagined setting as a character.

Collaborative storytelling means each member has to keep in mind the whole picture of the story coming together. And consider stuff that impact the story overall.

In contrast tabletop roleplaying the player only need to focus on his character and what he knows as that character. Because the point is to experience an imagined setting, we are going need some time to handle everything outside of the player characters themselves. That person for tabletop roleplaying game is a human referee. The person charged with handling the setting and adjudicating what the players try to do as their characters.

What makes this less than clear cut is the fact there is no bright line dividing a game that is solely focused on collaborative storytelling versus a game that is focusing on creating an experience based on an imagined setting.

Storygames need to have to rules that help players collaborate together in making a story, but also rules which define what characters are capable of. The result from the fact that storygames choose to use a GAME as the tool for collaboration. As oppose to the other techniques that people use to collaborate on stories.

As it happens making rules to define what character are capable of is exactly the same tool that tabletop RPGs use. Hence the overlap. Because of the overlap it is a spectrum rather than a clear division. The rule of thumb one should use is that the more the player has to think as a player as opposed as his character the more likely the game being used was designed to be a storygame.

But the most important factor is how the campaign is run not the rules. If the focus of the CAMPAIGN is to collaborate on a story, then the group is likely playing a story-game. If the focus of the campaign is to experience an imagined setting as a character then the group is likely playing tabletop roleplaying.

And because settings can be entire universes and worlds, it could be that one part of the campaign is played like a tabletop roleplaying game while another played like a storygame. For example the players play out building the history of a town and inhabitant and then run the rest of the campaign like a traditional RPG.

My opinion is that tabletop RPGs are overkill and poor tools for collaborative storytelling. That the whole storygame movement is held back by the idea of trying to be RPG version 2.0. That they would be better of jettisoning the idea that they are tabletop roleplaying games and work on better game mechanics crafted specifically for collaborative story telling.

One thing I do know, that right now, the number of people in tabletop roleplaying hobby are dwarfed by the number people engaged in collaborative writing on various forums, and other social media. Yeah most of this stuff is fan fiction of various popular characters and settings. But it is so huge that just about anything can be found written by people working in teams. Those are the folks that are ripe for a good game centered around collaborative storytelling.

Quote from: Tod13;910228To me, story gamer means the players get narrative control beyond their character's actions. In the OSR, a character looks over the bar to see if there is a shotgun and the GM decides if a shotgun is found. In story gaming, the player decides if their character finds a shotgun. I see the interest in such a system but don't care for it personally.

This seems to be a recurring theme in storygames. Depowering, or even eliminating, the GM. A whole faction had the battle cry of the evils of GMs and how they ruin the game. These were some of the first I ever heard of on the net. Others just wanted to be mini-GMs with the actual GM little better than a live automated dice roller and vend bot. Or were everyones the GM, but not really because GMs are evil so we'll call it player agency or some other term today. And so on.

Then theres the honest folk who just wanted a game that didnt need a GM as no one wanted to be the GM. Theres been some really interesting forays into RPGs following this idea.

Quote from: Omega;910270Then theres the honest folk who just wanted a game that didnt need a GM as no one wanted to be the GM. Theres been some really interesting forays into RPGs following this idea.

I don't mind the idea of not having a GM per se. But all the mechanics and rules around narrative control just don't appeal to me. Similarly, I don't care for Bennies or Hero Points or any of the other (to me) narrative-ish mechanisms I've run across in what might not otherwise be a Story Game. So at least I'm consistent.

Quote from: Tod13;910290I don't mind the idea of not having a GM per se. But all the mechanics and rules around narrative control just don't appeal to me. Similarly, I don't care for Bennies or Hero Points or any of the other (to me) narrative-ish mechanisms I've run across in what might not otherwise be a Story Game. So at least I'm consistent.

I don't like rules around narrative control either.  When I play, that stuff happens naturally and we've never needed mechanics for it.  It seems alien to have mechanics for that.  It seems like it's a kludge to ensure people get narrative control in a batch of people who would not normally allow it.

I'm fine with Bennies or Hero Points.  Once again, their use as narrative control buttons seems strange to me, but the understanding I have with who I play with is that they're panic buttons for using emergency narrative control.  And I'm fine with that.  I don't think it's necessary, but sometimes it reminds people they can contribute when they've got it in their mind their options are closed.

Let's see, if it triggers the Outraged Anti-Outrage Brigade Brigade then it's probably a Storygame.

Quote from: estar;910255The idea behind storygames seems straightforward to me. Using a game as a means for collaborative storytelling.

In contrast RPGs are about experiencing an imagined setting as a character.

Collaborative storytelling means each member has to keep in mind the whole picture of the story coming together. And consider stuff that impact the story overall.

Storygames need to have to rules that help players collaborate together in making a story, but also rules which define what characters are capable of. The result from the fact that storygames choose to use a GAME as the tool for collaboration. As oppose to the other techniques that people use to collaborate on stories.


My opinion is that tabletop RPGs are overkill and poor tools for collaborative storytelling. That the whole storygame movement is held back by the idea of trying to be RPG version 2.0. That they would be better of jettisoning the idea that they are tabletop roleplaying games and work on better game mechanics crafted specifically for collaborative story telling.

One thing I do know, that right now, the number of people in tabletop roleplaying hobby are dwarfed by the number people engaged in collaborative writing on various forums, and other social media. Yeah most of this stuff is fan fiction of various popular characters and settings. But it is so huge that just about anything can be found written by people working in teams. Those are the folks that are ripe for a good game centered around collaborative storytelling.

The Cubicle 7 game "Hobbit Tales" is card driven collaborative storytelling game in which the players take the roles of Hobbits telling tall tales, cards are played to add twists to the stories. It includes optional rules for using it as an addition to The One Ring RPG.

My teenaged daughter and her friends spend quite a bit of time "RPing" by which they mean writing collaborative stories about various characters.

Okay straight answer. I kind of concur with DavetheLost, a Storygame to me is something that has mechanics which allow players to affect the plot. Note I say players. I think all RPGs allow characters to affect the plot through actions and roleplay. As mentioned, collaborative storytelling is a big element of this. If there is a DM/GM/Narrator/Storyteller they basically agree by running the game to relinquish some of their creative control. This can be really fun if you're a GM who likes random things happening but maybe not so great if you prefer to control the plot.

I guess a good way to describe it is say in a traditional RPG your character searches for a secret door, whereas in a storygame the player could use a Story Point or whatever it is called and bends reality so that their character finds a secret door. Obviously these are two different approaches. In one the world is controlled by one person, in the other it is not.

Quote from: Krimson;910340Okay straight answer. I kind of concur with DavetheLost, a Storygame to me is something that has mechanics which allow players to affect the plot. Note I say players. I think all RPGs allow characters to affect the plot through actions and roleplay. As mentioned, collaborative storytelling is a big element of this. If there is a DM/GM/Narrator/Storyteller they basically agree by running the game to relinquish some of their creative control. This can be really fun if you're a GM who likes random things happening but maybe not so great if you prefer to control the plot.

I guess a good way to describe it is say in a traditional RPG your character searches for a secret door, whereas in a storygame the player could use a Story Point or whatever it is called and bends reality so that their character finds a secret door. Obviously these are two different approaches. In one the world is controlled by one person, in the other it is not.

It's kind of that, but as a player you do get chances to have narrative control sometimes, but to actually advance quickly you get benefits for actually playing to archetype and genre even though it screws you in game for a session or maybe multiple sessions. Because you get extra experience points beyond the arbitrary amount set by the GM just for actually playing how your character would, not you and move the game along in the bargain. So you don't use Fate points on something another class does as baseline. You do your thing even if it's objectively stupid. You get advances for not being a powergamer or doing something sensible and completely out of genre. You get major points by following your obsession no matter what.

Traditional games are focused on the stick in most cases while story games are focused on the carrot usually. Both methods are valid and nobody should be ridiculed if they have an obvious preference.

Here's my thoughts on it. While many traditional RPGs can have some kind of "luck" or "destiny" points or mechanics to influence the outcome of play (usually by pushing rolls to the players favour), or meta-mechanics which force the player to think outside of the game (optimal builds and strategies, experience point accrual), these are few and far between in the game. Most of the game is focused on using the rules, imagination and outcomes dictated by the rules engine and game-master material to evolve the game. The entertainment is derived from the combination of these elements. While character plots can be pursued, and this is in fact recommended, there is no protection in the game to stop a beloved character from being slain in a chance encounter, or crushed by a grouchy GM. Most of the time, this works excellently - reasonable people game reasonably, and toadish GMs loose players.

Story games are an evolution of the traditional RPG, taking some of the above elements and altering the tone to focus on allowing the character plot to take primacy in the game. The game, then, becomes chiefly about the player developing the narrative structure of the character and his/her plot arc, and experiencing this with the other players at the table. The GM is still expected to create a plot of his or her own, but the players have some built in protections to stop a random system event or a toad GM from outright crushing the character.

In a traditional RPG world, Conan is a character with very good stats, a very clever player, and many a good roll.

In a storygame RPG world, Conan is a character whose plot arc is being developed.

I see neither technique as superior, and having played both styles of games, I typically mix and match what suits me and my players. Purists seem to get caught up in the details as if this shit matters at a gaming table, or as if anyone outside this hobby would even be able to recognize the supposed difference between these two game styles. Also, to be fair, I'm positive that Storygames fired the opening salvo in this pointless hobby-war.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;910219I agree on the importance, less on the "defining". Contrary to Forge theory, the means is sometimes as important as the goals. Even in the storygame field, this point is debated. I have seen Vincent Baker oppose Ron Edwards on this subject by saying that at some point some technical agenda (means) had spoiled one of his games, despite the fact that the creative agenda (goal) was the same for all players. I agree with VB here.

However, the fact that one point is relevant and meaningful does not imply that you can base a definition on it. When you define something, the point is finding something that helps you discriminate. And not everything that is relevant is also a discriminant.

Looking forward to a more articulate reply later.

Well, when it comes to the idea of defining a Roleplaying Game, or more specifically, a subtype of Roleplaying Game, or hybrid perhaps, what should be the primary discriminant?  I'll agree there may be multiple axes, but in the end, what type of game are we describing?  

A "computer game" that doesn't run on a computer obviously is a problematic classification.  So, at some point, we might have to get into the whole "what is roleplaying" thing, although I'd rather not, because at that point people start putting on team jersies.

The issue I have with Venger's definition as opposed to Ars Ludi's definition is that the Ars Ludi one is specifically defining elements of game mechanics, where Venger's is talking about people's preferences, not games.  True, they are tied together - the reason one likes a certain game is because it matches your preferences in some way.  In the end though, if we're talking about the definition of a game, then we have to deal with the game mechanics at some point, and I think the very basic IC/OOC divide is clear, concise, and quite a useful determinant, because while there may be a scale at which too many OOC elements hits some personal preference tipping point, there are roleplaying games without mechanics that meet the AL definition of a Storygame element.  That, to me, at least seems the perfect place to start.

The easiest way to challenge a definition is of course to point out an obvious example that should fall under the definition, but doesn't.  You mentioned some games that didn't meet that definition even though we might agree they are Storygames, so what are the specific games?

Quote from: RosenMcStern;910211

QuoteStorygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us.

OSR: I am here to experience a guy's life in the chosen setting. My character is probably nothing special, at the beginning, and what makes him unique will be decided as the game progresses.

Starting out as nothing special is not a requirement for playing in a way that “lets the story come to us.”

In fact, most players find that what happens in play will be more memorable to them than most of what is invented outside of play. Including much of what they (and most especially others) see as making their character unique. So that is true of both OSR and Story games and gamers.

QuoteSG: I am here to be one of the protagonists of a memorable story…It is still preferrable that heroic deeds be a consequence of in-game, in-character interactions, but this is just a nice to have: the epicness of the story is the final goal of my gaming.

I don’t think the epicness of play is at all related to whether or not the players are pursuing story. One could easily run a game where the players pursue a very un-epic story about rather ordinary people. Most gamers don’t do that. But then few OSR gamers would be willing to play a game where their characters were effectively limited to beginning character stats.

QuoteFor this reason, although it is not perfect, I would rather side with Venger's definition: by focusing on the goals rather than the techniques used, it helps us much more in discriminating the specific experience a game is trying to promote. In a pinch, it is about what you want from your game, not about how you get it.

Gamers have goals. Games don’t. If you tailor your definition solely to the goals of the players rather than the rules of the game, there are no story games. There are only story gamers. Thus Venger's definition isn't a definition of story games.

Quote from: DavetheLost;910221Want to duck beind a dumpster or a trash can in a back alley? Unless I described the alley as being devoid of cover it is probably reasonable to assume that such a thing exists. They are fairly common in alleys after all.

In modern alleys, sure. In other places and times, dumpsters don’t exist and a trash is just tossed out the window into the street or gutters and sits there until the night soil collectors pick it up or a good rain storm washes it downstream. Which is not to say I disagree with your main point, because I don’t, just that what is reasonable is more than just what seems reasonable to the average urban dwelling, 21st century, first world citizen.

Lately, I’ve come to the opinion that my gaming would go a lot smoother if my players said some version of, “I want to hide. What’s in this alley that I can hide behind (or in)?” Rather than saying some version of “I want to hide behind the dumpster” or even worse, “Is there a dumpster in the alley?” and even worser, “What’s in the alley?”

RPGs use associated mechanics: When you make a mechanical decision in an RPG, the decision is directly associated to a decision being made by the character. So that when you play the game (i.e., make mechanical decisions) you are directly engaged in the act of playing a role (i.e., making decisions as if you were your character).

STGs use narrative control mechanics: The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk.

The real world, of course, is not a purity test, so there's plenty of mechanical cross-pollination: Mild arrative control mechanics like action points are pretty common in RPGs. Plenty of STGs feature character avatars and often feature some mechanical decisions that are made from the stance of the character. But, generally speaking, these definitions clearly identify the difference between, say, The Shab-al-Hiri Roach and GURPS.

Longer thoughts on this topic: Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games

Storygames are games that belong in the Other Games forum.

'Nuff said.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;910359Story games are an evolution of the traditional RPG, taking some of the above elements and altering the tone to focus on allowing the character plot to take primacy in the game. The game, then, becomes chiefly about the player developing the narrative structure of the character and his/her plot arc, and experiencing this with the other players at the table. The GM is still expected to create a plot of his or her own, but the players have some built in protections to stop a random system event or a toad GM from outright crushing the character.

In a traditional RPG world, Conan is a character with very good stats, a very clever player, and many a good roll.

In a storygame RPG world, Conan is a character whose plot arc is being developed.

This is a very good "definition as example", too. I like it very much.

And like Venger's, it focuses on "what you want to achieve" in the game, and not on "the technique used", be it round-robin narrative control, luck points, or dancing while describing an action (yes, these are all techiniques used in "storygames"). It certainly tells much more about what to expect from a game than trying to explain people what "dissociated mechanics" means.

QuoteAlso, to be fair, I'm positive that Storygames fired the opening salvo in this pointless hobby-war.

Sadly, yes. This is why I totally support Venger Satanis in his call for a truce in the other thread.

Quote from: Bren;910371Gamers have goals. Games don't. If you tailor your definition solely to the goals of the players rather than the rules of the game, there are no story games. There are only story gamers. Thus Venger's definition isn't a definition of story games.

This has been explained and addressed more than 10 years ago. While it is true that the "goal" of playing is a characteristic of the group and of the campaign, it is also true thay you can design a game which pushes the group and the campaign in one specific direction so strongly that they are effectively selecting the "goal" for the group. If you try to use them for something different, the game rules frustrate your intentions and ultimately induce you into playing something else, eventually posting "This game sucks!" on some forums.

Simple example: compare RuneQuest and Pendragon. One comes straight from the other, but while RuneQuest does NOT make choices for you, allowing you to play dungeon crawls, quests for money, revenge tales, quests for glory, community adventures, order vs. chaos, evil vs. good, and basically anything that could have a resemblance to a fantasy tale (and definitely leaving the task of incentivizing the playstyle that the group is looking for, if any, to the GM), Pendragon uses a slightly modified RuneQuest engine to support and produce one and ONLY one of the aforementioned experience: the quest for glory of Righteous and Virtuous knights. Trying to play with other goals in mind will disrupt your fun (unless you hack the game, as someone does, but this is a demonstration of what I am stating: you need to change the rules to allow them to support the group's goal if different from the one Greg Stafford originally intended).

Conclusion: while the ultimate arbiter of the goal is the group, some games, like Pendragon, do have a goal of their own. The technical term is that they "promote" that specific goal, to be precise. But saying that they "have" a goal is probably easier to understand for a casual reader.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910367The issue I have with Venger's definition as opposed to Ars Ludi's definition is that the Ars Ludi one is specifically defining elements of game mechanics, where Venger's is talking about people's preferences, not games.  True, they are tied together - the reason one likes a certain game is because it matches your preferences in some way.

And this is an agreed point. I think we all convene that what is really important is the goal of the game. See also Coffe Zombie's "definition by example".

QuoteIn the end though, if we're talking about the definition of a game, then we have to deal with the game mechanics at some point, and I think the very basic IC/OOC divide is clear, concise, and quite a useful determinant, because while there may be a scale at which too many OOC elements hits some personal preference tipping point, there are roleplaying games without mechanics that meet the AL definition of a Storygame element.  That, to me, at least seems the perfect place to start.

This is reasonable. Goals are non-measurable, while mechanics are. And definitions are better tied to measurable, verifiable quantities. The point is that the verifiabel definition should not be misleading.

QuoteThe easiest way to challenge a definition is of course to point out an obvious example that should fall under the definition, but doesn't.  You mentioned some games that didn't meet that definition even though we might agree they are Storygames, so what are the specific games?

Ok, let's try with an initial example. The challenged definition is "In a story game, a player's ability to affect what happens in the game is not dependent on their character's fictional ability to do those things."

I state that according to this definition, "3:16 - Carnage among the Stars", a totally forgie game developed on the Forge after winning the 24h game design contest, is not a story game., because it enables players to influence the game only through their characters' fictional abilities to do things. There is no OOC action or declaration a player can choose in 3.16.

Now, one might object that 3.16 has "luck points" of a devastating order of magnitude. I agree on the order of magnitude: I used them to kill Chtulhu, once. But Strengths and Weaknesses in 3:16 are a totally in-character mechanics. They represent exactly a fictional ability (or inability for a weakness) that your character has, and has always had. It is just that you mark it on the character sheet only when you use it in play, and not at character creation time, describing a flashback that explains how you gained that strength/weakness. There is no deus-ex-machina that you can activate: everything comes from a yet-unexplored facet of your character. You describe the flashback in-character, not out-of-character.

Apart from this, 3:16 has only traditional aspects: you fight aliens, you kill them, you can get wounded and die. In fact, the game incentivizes other players to backstab you by limiting character improvement to only one surviving character per mission, so you die quite often. And everything - everything - is handled in first person. No OOC action or thinking is incentivized in any way. You can hardly find anything more "immersive".

Does this make this "hardcore forgie" game a "non-storygame", then?

(Incidentally, 3:16 is among my favourite indie games, too. I even know the author in real life, great guy).

Quote from: DavetheLost;910336My teenaged daughter and her friends spend quite a bit of time "RPing" by which they mean writing collaborative stories about various characters.

My impression is that is collaborative storytelling has become extensive among female teenagers. Conversely among the male teenagers, modding and playing around with servers that allow you to build things is a big deal (think Minecraft and Garry's Mod).