Fair enough, Rosen. It just seemed to me that you were directly rehashing Edwards thinking, with his emphasis on goals and theme. If you were bringing something new to the table, I admit to missing it. Stating my objections to these points does not constitute a demand that you agree.

Anyway, I can give some examples of OOC mechanics that aren't designed in order to build a game around a story:

1. Allowing players to control NPCs in combat, as seen in Savage Worlds and other games.

2. Allowing players to design their characters, even in areas which the character would have no control over, such as race and sex.

I could certainly come up with more.

What it boils down to is that the simulation of the imaginary world has multiple meta layers. At minimum there is not just the narrative meta layer, but the GAME meta layer, and some OOC mechanics will be founded in the game layer rather than the narrative one.

EDIT: Pursuing these thoughts further, perhaps in Story games there IS NO interior simulation core. Instead the core is narrative with the meta layer simply being game rules for determining who has narrative authority.

Quote from: Bren;916971I disagree. As I mentioned 007 is an example as is the original WEG D6 Star Wars. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ghost Busters was as well. These just don’t appear to be the sort of games that (a) feature a literary theme as opposed to replicating a genre and/or (b) get played much by people who self identify as story gamers.

Knowing the genre style is not the same as knowing the theme(s). Arthurian stories have a range of themes and even of genres. Arthurian stories influenced by the Chivalric Romances of the continent are very different (both in genre and often in theme) than are the stories influenced by Celtic Myths from the British Isles. Pendragon as a system allows for both styles of tale, but a single campaign may not.

Uhm, I think we should clarify whether "features a literary theme" opposes "replicating a genre". As stated, I am not a great fan of Egri, but I do not find it useless, either. The point is that, as I see it, a genre has a pack of themes that are most commonly found in it. Thus, a game that tries to emulate a genre will induce you into introducing certain themes into your game. In your example, you say that you can identify two distinct genres of Arthurian tales, and they differ in the themes they propose.

Please note also that "genre emulation" is just ONE facet of storygames. Not all storygames are meant for that.

QuoteBut that begs the question of how relevant or useful the opinion of Forge contributors is to an attempt to categorize types of games. Given their previous inability to articulate a useful taxonomy evidence that their opinion is useful needs to first be provided.

That "inability" is your opinion. See my reply to Manzanaro above. I do not base my reasoning on a "The Forge is correct" principle, although on this particular subject I agree with Ron Edwards. And I do not accept counter-arguments phrased as "The Forge said this so it is useless junk". I have re-proposed a Forge statement for everyone to criticise its applicability. I expect it to be analysed without prejudice. The point is that "coherent design" and "it delivers what it clearly promises" are statments about KAP that deserve some consideration. And they happen to be what the Forge said about the game.

QuoteWhat the example of games like Pendragon shows is that a desire to build a game around story is not always coincident with OOC mechanics. You flipped the two around. You’d need some examples of games with a significant presence of OOC mechanics that are unrelated to any desire to build the game around a story to make the claim you just made.

Does Mythras qualify? It has Luck Points but I would not call it a genre emulator, nor a game built around a story. Probably OpenQuest, too. The original MRQ1 had even the "story edit" option for Hero Points, thus an undoubtedly OOC use of them, but I would absolutely not call it a storygame. It was more of a "save ass" option against RuneQuest lethality.

Quote from: Manzanaro;916978Fair enough, Rosen. It just seemed to me that you were directly rehashing Edwards thinking, with his emphasis on goals and theme. If you were bringing something new to the table, I admit to missing it. Stating my objections to these points does not constitute a demand that you agree.

I am reproposing some of his ideas. Nothing new. But perhaps we could find something new that Edwards missed. Discussions are for this.

QuoteEDIT: Pursuing these thoughts further, perhaps in Story games there IS NO interior simulation core. Instead the core is narrative with the meta layer simply being game rules for determining who has narrative authority.

That would rule out The Riddle of Steel, and probably The Burning Wheel, which are very detailed combat simulators. And they are Forge games. Oh, and my BRP Mecha, too, which is dramatically crunchy but also dramatically a Storygame...

"Determining who has narrative authority" is a very useful tool for making storygames. But it is not the only tool available.

Well, I make a distinction between "story games" and "games whose design heavily employ theory derived from the story game movement".

So, for example, I don't consider Fate to be a pure story game. It absolutely has a sim core, even if MUCH of the gameplay takes place on a gamified narrative meta level.

I think pure story games were always a rarity and have become even moreso. I would not even consider Sorcerer a pure story game; Fiasco I would, and a very good one.

And all of this comes back to why I find it more useful to look at mechanics rather than some elusive goal of design or play. Games as a whole tend to be on a spectrum rather than on either side of some binary division.

Rosen, let me run something by you in terms of goals.

My standard M.O. as a GM in traditional games is to shoot for a compelling narrative play experience, while ENTIRELY adhering to principles of simulation without authorial interference in determining outcomes of conflicts and etc.

I am quite sure Edwards would call my goals incoherent, but I chalk that up to a failure of imagination on his part, as well as an inherently flawed system of categorisation (such that he did not even recognize genre emulation as falling into the category of narrative, despite what you say elsewhere in this thread).

Do you agree with his ideas about coherence? How would you classify my goals by your system?

Quote from: RosenMcStern;916958Bingo!

There are probably very few of these games. Maybe Pendragon is the only one, or one of a handful. Note also that 99% of Forge contributors recognize Pendragon as  "coherent design". KAP is "storygame friendly". Not a coincidence.

Also, the fact that the type of story is determined by the game is not a problem. It is quite normal for storygames: if you play KAP or DitV, you know beforehand what kind of story you will play. In other cases, such as Primetime Adventures, you do not.

So the presence of OOC mechanics is not coincident with the desire to build the game around a "story" (a "theme"). But almost so. The two axes are independent, but often related.

The only example we could find so far which builds around "story" or "theme" is a classic game that storygamers would call an ante litteram storygame.

I affirm that the possibility that the most precise definition of StoryGame is the one based solely on the "goal" is still on the table.

The thing about "goal" though is that it is useless to define a game without design intent.  Players can come to OD&D with a goal to collaboratively create stories live at the table.  
The system and designers gave really zero support for that in the game itself...but neither did they actively impede it, so it could be done.

I can roleplay in Necromunda, does that make Necromunda a RPG?
I can collaboratively tell stories with OD&D, does that make it a StoryGame?

Player goal is meaningless for game definition unless it intersects with designer's goal and rules/mechanical support.

In other words the definition of a game could include something like "this is an Xgame because it was created for the purpose of meeting the goals of players who want to do X."

A detailed personal wargame, once you start adding enough non-combat rules, can accidentally turn into a roleplaying game - that's how the hobby was created.

I don't think you accidentally create a Storygame, Narrative RPG, Genre RPG, etc.  They are specifically constructed to deliver an experience.

In the end, goals must intersect with design in the definition.

Quote from: Manzanaro;916996I am quite sure Edwards would call my goals incoherent

Possibly, as I have zero confidence in the man's ability to really stand true to his own principles, but....

Quotean inherently flawed system of categorisation (such that he did not even recognize genre emulation as falling into the category of narrative, despite what you say elsewhere in this thread).

"genre emulation" is classified as Simulationism (Right to Dream) by the Forge. Not Narrativism (Story Now). Both exist, and probably a gazillion other agendas do exist, but these two are real. I have played both.

So no, I do not think your personal agenda is technically incoherent. You seek a precise experience, which someone calls "authenticity". Maybe a variation of Story Now, maybe a variation of Right to Dream. Not important, because what is really important is that you actually have expectations about what the game has to give the players at the table. Very clear expectations. So the terms "Story Now" and "RIght to Dream" are only important as long as they help you understand how to meet the expectations of the people at YOUR table.

How the waters were muddied so that no one could manage to understand these terms without a titanic effort is another story

Quote from: CRKrueger;916998The thing about "goal" though is that it is useless to define a game without design intent.  Players can come to OD&D with a goal to collaboratively create stories live at the table.  
The system and designers gave really zero support for that in the game itself...but neither did they actively impede it, so it could be done.

I can roleplay in Necromunda, does that make Necromunda a RPG?
I can collaboratively tell stories with OD&D, does that make it a StoryGame?

Player goal is meaningless for game definition unless it intersects with designer's goal and rules/mechanical support.

In other words the definition of a game could include something like "this is an Xgame because it was created for the purpose of meeting the goals of players who want to do X."

A detailed personal wargame, once you start adding enough non-combat rules, can accidentally turn into a roleplaying game - that's how the hobby was created.

I don't think you accidentally create a Storygame, Narrative RPG, Genre RPG, etc.  They are specifically constructed to deliver an experience.

In the end, goals must intersect with design in the definition.

I agree 100%.

Of course design intention must meet player expectation.

In fact, storygames were created to allow players who spent a fuckazillion dollars on splatbooks to actually play what they were promised but never given.

Apologies this may be long and kind of rambling. I want to avoid one question getting lost in the verbiage. So I'm moving your last statement to the beginning.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;916990"Determining who has narrative authority" is a very useful tool for making storygames. But it is not the only tool available.

What other tools do you used or have you seen used?

Quote from: RosenMcStern;916990Uhm, I think we should clarify whether "features a literary theme" opposes "replicating a genre".

Since you introduced the term "theme" you might then clarify what you meant. My point was that since genre and theme are different and separate things, saying a game is designed to facilitate genre isn't the same as saying a game is designed to facilitate a theme, any theme, or even certain themes. Genre, theme, and story all mean different things. Interchanging them will hinder rather than help any definition. Certainly many genres feature certain themes, but that says very little as all literature uses a limited set of themes.

QuotePlease note also that "genre emulation" is just ONE facet of storygames. Not all storygames are meant for that.

Is genre emulation a facet of storygames or just another facet of games that lies orthogonal to story? It seems that when people talk about story in an RPG the word story frequently tends to become an umbrella term that includes anything that is included in some story somewhere. Some folks go even farther and use the term narrative as synonymous and indistinguishable from story. Which then makes any written words or verbal utterance a "story" in that trivial sense. Obviously if a simple narrative is all that story meant there would be no need for a storygame of any kind since nearly everything already is a story under that umbrella.

QuoteIt's a term I think is orthogonal to roleplaying As stated, I am not a great fan of Egri, but I do not find it useless, either. The point is that, as I see it, a genre has a pack of themes that are most commonly found in it. Thus, a game that tries to emulate a genre will induce you into introducing certain themes into your game. In your example, you say that you can identify two distinct genres of Arthurian tales, and they differ in the themes they propose.

Some themes differ. Some are the same. There are only so many themes to go around so there is going to be overlap.

QuoteThat "inability" is your opinion.

Sure it is my opinion. You don't have to accept my opinion anymore than I have to accept yours. But as long as we are discussing what we aren't accepting, I do not accept an argument phrased as "The Forge said it so it is useful or true." Which is what you seemed to me to be doing there.

QuoteI have re-proposed a Forge statement for everyone to criticise its applicability. I expect it to be analysed without prejudice. The point is that "coherent design" and "it delivers what it clearly promises" are statments about KAP that deserve some consideration. And they happen to be what the Forge said about the game.

Are you referring to the two phrases you put in quotes here or to something else. If something else, would you please point me to what statement that is or where you said it? I don't mean that to be snarky or derailing, but, if there is another, I've lost track.

The Pendragon game has a specific and narrow focus on Arthurian Stories. If that's what you mean by "coherent" then "coherent" is not a very good word to use, since there is no requirement that a game that isn't narrow and specific is required to be not coherent. There are clearly games with a wide and open focus that are logical, consistent, and orderly i.e. coherent. In addition, the rules used in Pendragon for opposed traits and passions are easily adaptable, and have been adapted, to other settings. If fact the mechanic originated in the Gloranthan setting for playing nonhumans, i.e. Dragonewts and was later included in Pendragon.

Also, stories don't need to be coherent. They usually are, but that is not a requirement. In fact literary critics seem to prefer a certain degree of illogic or inconsistency in the literature they favor. So coherence, whatever it means in general, would seem to be orthogonal to whether or not something is a storygame. I think that is in contradiction to what the adherents of the Forge claimed and maybe what you have proposed.

"It delivers what it clearly promises" is a bit vague to be very useful for anything other than a cute line in a game review. How does a game promise something? Advertising? Rules explanations? Examples of play? Designer notes? And who does it promise it to? How are they, whoever they are, aware of that promise or those promises? In my experience players seldom read the game rules or speak to the game designer. Which means that, with the exception of the GM, there can't be a meaningful promise between the game or its designer and the players of the game since the former are not truly communicating with the latter. Promises aren't transitive, so you can't say that the game promised the GM who then promised the player and when a player (like Ron Edwards playing VtM) is disappointed in their GM's promise that this then necessarily carries over to the game or its designer. It might, I suppose. A shitty game is likely to be a disappointed to almost everyone. But so is a shitty GM or a shitty player.

Perhaps "It delivers what it clearly promises" is supposed to mean that the rules hinder the GM from running the sort of game that something or someone somewhere promised. That seemed to be the argument that Ron Edwards made re: VtM. Right? How much of that is advertising puffery taken way too seriously by Ron...I mean it's not like most D&D sessions actually ever featured a dungeon and a dragon. Dragons were more absent than present in D&D. Based on the thread someone started about play experiences with VtM at least a few people played games that seemed to deliver what was promised. Does that mean it's just a matter of opinion about whether or not the game hinders the GM from running the sort of game it promises?

QuoteDoes Mythras qualify? It has Luck Points but I would not call it a genre emulator, nor a game built around a story. Probably OpenQuest, too. The original MRQ1 had even the "story edit" option for Hero Points, thus an undoubtedly OOC use of them, but I would absolutely not call it a storygame. It was more of a "save ass" option against RuneQuest lethality.

I'm not very familiar with Mythras or any of the post Avalon Hill RQ iterations.

I think by focusing on terms like coherence you are being led astray. Mythras, as you describe it, sounds like a rules toolkit similar to the Basic Role Playing Game that preceded it or like GURPS or HERO. Toolkits are explicitly not genre specific because they are designed to be used with many (maybe all) genres. Thus they will be nonspecific and open not narrow and specific. And yet they are clearly coherent in the sense of logical, orderly, and consistent. Similarly we could create a generic version of the Pendragon rules by using different traits and passions, setting up different cultures and culturally valued traits, etc. Which would be a good way to play a game set in Glorantha.

One further thought on why I think focusing on player goals isn't useful for categorizing games.

I don't believe I've ever gamed with anyone who had just one goal for play. Nor a group who had uniformity of goals. Rules, on the other hand, I know lots of people who game with one set of rules for a particular session or campaign.

So here's another thought too. I do feel like there is something to the idea that a story game has no underlying sim core. There is a big difference between Savage Worlds, which operates largely on a simulation level, with a few narrative strings that can get pulled via metacurrency, as opposed to say Fiasco, which is narrative through and through, with gameplay rules focused on generating story elements, twists and maintaining a certain narrative structure.

And that had me thinking of possibly another key story game feature: if there is a dramatic or narrative structure ingrained into the rules, it is almost certainly a story game. So, examples would be things like Fiasco, but also games that have a baked in 3 act structure, or even arguably something like Fate, where you do have a certain ingrained dramatic structure based on the fate point economy: show characters weaknesses and how they lead to failure followed by showing their strengths and how they lead them to larger success.

I think this point is certainly debatable. It could probably be argued that even D&D has some narrative structure ingrained into the rules. But I thought I'd throw it out there.

Just tossing something out there for evaluation:
In a roleplaying game, the game elements are engaged by the characters through roleplaying.
In a storygame, the game elements are engaged by the players while storytelling/creating.

You might be thinking, "yeah so, this is the difference between a character-facing and player-facing mechanic", true, but it can help to differentiate between a roleplaying game, a storygame, and a hybrid.

So in Fiasco, there is a game element, with dice, but they're not used during the actual roleplaying, they're used during the story creating part.  So, while Fiasco does include roleplaying it is not a roleplaying game, because the game element is not invoked by the roleplaying.

As I understand it from reading "coherent" and "incoherent" in forgespeak refer to whether a game tries to mix the agendas they define in their essays. If the terms have  shades of their dictionary   meaning, it's only in the context of that notion. I think it's an unfortunate, but maybe purposeful  choice  of words, because of the connotations  they carry (when has incoherent  ever been a positive  term?).

Quote from: CRKrueger;918003Just tossing something out there for evaluation:
In a roleplaying game, the game elements are engaged by the characters through roleplaying.
In a storygame, the game elements are engaged by the players while storytelling/creating.

"Characters" cannot engage anything. They are not real.

Let us rephrase it as:

In a roleplaying game, the players engage the game elements exclusively through in-character (intra-diagetic) action.
In a storygame, the players may engage game elements directly (extra-diagetic action).

Corollary (proposed by my friend Claudio Freda): in a classic roleplaying game, the rules are structured to create the illusion of an intra-diagetic cause-effect relationship between game world elements. In a "storygame" you drop that illusion and accept that there is no real intra-diagetic action but only direct action by the players.

The word "illusion" should not be intended as negative. Sometimes, that "illusion" is necessary to maintain suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;918131As I understand it from reading "coherent" and "incoherent" in forgespeak refer to whether a game tries to mix the agendas they define in their essays. If the terms have  shades of their dictionary   meaning, it's only in the context of that notion. I think it's an unfortunate, but maybe purposeful  choice  of words, because of the connotations  they carry (when has incoherent  ever been a positive  term?).

Not exactly. Coherent means that it actively tries to encourage one game experience (agenda). Incoherent means that it does not. It is not necessary to incite mixing the agendas, just leaving the task of defining it to the group is enough to label a game as "incoherent".

Example:
Pendragon -> coherent, it tells you what sort of game to play
RuneQuest -> incoherent, you can use it to promote different game agendas, up to you to choose themes and such

Generally, and as you can see, an incoherent game has a broader range of applicability. At the cost of leaving a big chunk of the job to the GM. This may be a feature or a bug, depending on your personal tastes.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;918178"Characters" cannot engage anything. They are not real.

Tell that to a writer.

Seriously though, I see what you mean, and you want to rephrase, that's fine, but frankly, there can be absolutely no mistaking a mechanic "engaged by the character" vs. one "engaged by the player".  
A Dwarf Warrior swings his axe vs. A Hobbit Rogue relies on the inherent luck of his race to aid him in opening a chest.
The first is clearly "character-facing", IC, "intra-diagetic" etc...
The second is clearly "player-facing", OOC, etc... (unless the setting provides for some way for Hobbits to know that they have Luck and to choose how and when to use it).

The idea that "there is no character, hence there is no character action" is the type of argument that always gets made to lay the groundwork for the idea that there is no difference between IC and OOC action, IC and OOC choice, because it all stems from the mind of the player.  It's also the point at which the groundwork gets laid for the eventual "delusional" attacks that inevitably come.

The entire purpose of playing pretend, playing a role, whatever you want to call it, is to use imagination, empathy, etc to create suspension of disbelief, to create that illusion, so that we treat the characters and act as the characters as if they are real.  At least if what you enjoy is roleplaying, and not interactive collaborative storytelling.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;918178In a roleplaying game, the players engage the game elements exclusively through in-character (intra-diagetic) action.
In a storygame, the players may engage game elements directly (extra-diagetic action).

There may be other reasons for OOC action than for storytelling purposes (like tactical balance), and a roleplaying game may have an optional mechanic or two to allow for OOC action.  But overall, ok.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;918178Corollary (proposed by my friend Claudio Freda): in a classic roleplaying game, the rules are structured to create the illusion of an intra-diagetic cause-effect relationship between game world elements.

In a "storygame" you drop that illusion and accept that there is no real intra-diagetic action but only direct action by the players.

The word "illusion" should not be intended as negative. Sometimes, that "illusion" is necessary to maintain suspension of disbelief.

I'm guessing your friend likes playing storygames?  Those who do seem to always see their particular enjoyment of IC/OOC hybrid games as "normal" or the "truth" and other's preference of IC only means that they can't "accept" what really is occurring.  You see this all the time on this board, with people constantly telling roleplayers that they are collaboratively creating story whether they acknowledge, ie. "accept" it or not.  Or, someone's ability to see OOC mechanics for what they actually are and distinguish between OOC and IC mechanics clearly is referred to as an "allergy".

BTW, have you noticed that the only people I've ever seen who object to the idea of the terminology of "character action" are the same people who enjoy storygames and games with strong narrative control or 3rd person OOC mechanics?  People who prefer roleplaying without storytelling somehow seem to always know exactly what you're talking about.

I would absolutely love to get people playing different games and do some Functional Imaging scans.