Yeah, I know, but in several threads just in the last couple weeks there have been multiple times when people are asking "What the hell is a Storygame" or "I don't get it." Here's a link (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/460/defining-story-games/) to a blog Ars Ludi, written by a guy who loves and blogs almost exclusively about StoryGames. He also ran the Westmarches, an old school style 3e sandbox, so he's not really ideologically invested either. To make it easier to quote and deal with here in the forums, I'm going to post it in it's entirety. (emphasis mirrors original text emphasis) Edit: The key element of the definition is in the spoiler but also underlined just below.
Spoiler
Defining Story Games
But first a caveat. Nailing down definitions can turn into a horrible quagmire, particularly when we’re tackling words that lots of people already use but define differently, or use without an actual definition just a case-by-case “I can’t explain it but I know it when I see it”.
But without definitions words can be treacherous. The worst case scenario isn’t that we disagree about a definition and argue about it for hours on end, it’s that we don’t even realize we disagree. We both use the same word and think we’re on the same page but really we mean entirely different things. That’s a communication nightmare that can sabotage the best of intentions in discussion or at the gaming table.
Language is organic, mutable and constantly evolving. I don’t harbor any illusions that I get to decide what words mean. But at least if you’re talking to me you’ll know what I mean when I say “story games.”
How Story Games were described to me
When I started playing story games here’s how they were described to me: A story game is a role-playing game where the participants focus on making a story together instead of just playing “their guy.” The alternative–which I played 100% of the time for more than two decades–would be adventure games like D&D, where your character is your turf.
Yep, I said adventure games. I’ve used the term “traditional games” a lot but in hindsight it’s a terrible term for the games we’ve loved for decades. Back in the 70s and 80s these same “traditional” games were frickin’ radical. I think “adventure game” is a better term. In an adventure game it’s the job of the players to beat the adventure the GM presents. Again, not my invention: “adventure game” was a common term for D&D etc. back in the day. Shippensburg was officially the Shippensburg Adventure Game Camp.
In adventure games your job is to play your character and make good decisions for them. If you mess up (or roll badly) your character can die and be removed from the game. In a story game any character you play is a facet of the shared story. You may even sabotage your own character or spin them into tragedy because it makes the story more interesting. It’s a shift from “what would my character try to do” to “what do I want to have happen to my character” and in the story at large.
How I define Story Games: the Acid Test
That was several years ago. I’ve played a lot of different story games since then. Some good, some great and yes some terrible games too.
After playing all those games and explaining story games to lots and lots of people, I find that “a game that focuses on making a story” is a good description but not a very useful definition. It doesn’t identify specific differences. You could look at almost any role-playing game and say “hey, we were all about making a great story in our D&D game!” and you wouldn’t be wrong. If you’d only ever played games like D&D (like I had for decades) you might wonder what the big deal was.
Can we isolate a mechanical difference? An acid test that separates story games from adventure games? I think there’s one very quantifiable difference:
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’d argue that’s the defining trait. The degree to which the rules give you authority that isn’t based on your character’s abilities is the degree to which it is a story game.
Think about that. In an adventure role-playing game you can only accomplish something because your character can do it. In a story role-playing game you can make something happen because as a player you want it, not just because your character can make it happen.
In an adventure game like D&D you decide what your character does, but your ability to succeed is a reflection of your character’s traits. If your character is stealthy you can sneak into the necromancer’s tower. If you’re clumsy you probably can’t. It doesn’t matter how much the player wants to sneak into the tower or thinks it would be interesting to sneak into the tower. The likelihood of success is only based on what the character can do in the fictional world.
In a story game (by my definition) the character isn’t the limit of your power in the game. The rules give the players authority over things that are outside their characters’ control. How, you ask? There are a lot of different ways. Take sneaking into the necromancer’s tower. In some story games players might have the power to frame scenes, letting them simply declare where the next action takes place: “this scene is inside the necromancer’s tower after my character snuck in…” In other story games disagreement might be resolved through conflict resolution: one player might say “I sneak into the tower!” and another player might think that shouldn’t work or should lead to trouble so it becomes a conflict they resolve with the rules (which might involve dice, voting, story points, etc. depending on the system). A player might oppose success because they don’t think it makes sense for the clumsy character to sneak into the tower, or they might be all for it because they think it would be awesome to have a big climactic scene in the tower: that’s up to them. Either way, the character’s fictional abilities are not the deciding factor. It’s the players that decide the result, as moderated by their authority in the rules.
Scene framing and conflict resolution are two common ways to give players say in what happens in the larger game, but there are a zillion other ways, large and small. The tiniest atomic particle of story game rules may be the humble action point or hero point: any case where a player has a pool of points they can spend to reroll dice. You don’t want your character to blow your riding check and lose the race (and look like an idiot in front of the king) so you spend a point to reroll. That’s the player influencing the fiction outside of the character (unless the reroll is something the character is doing to correct a mistake, not a replacement for the original outcome).
Laugh in the Face of Death
If you’ve played adventure role-playing games, you know that if something bad happens to your character it can take away your ability to play. A tactical mistake or a bad roll can take you out of the game.
We’ve all dealt with it. If your character falls in a pit and dies you are out of the game until you make a new character and the GM lets you bring them in. If your character is paralyzed by a necromancer in the middle of a fight (again with the necromancers!) you sit tight and wait while everyone else at the table plays without you. What did you do wrong? You rolled badly or you opened the wrong door or the GM decided the monster attacked you instead of someone else. Suck it up.
Story games don’t work that way. An outgrowth of the “your character is not the limit of your authority” bedrock is that in a story game what happens to your character does not reduce (or increase) your ability to participate in the game. Nothing that happens to the character can put the player in time-out. In a lot of story games character death is not even a possibility unless the player decides it’s a good idea, and if your character dies you can continue to play influencing what happens in the story of the characters that remain.
If what happens to your character can reduce your authority to contribute, you are probably not playing a story game. It’s critical because it gives you the freedom to make interesting, dramatic things happen. You don’t have to protect your character to stay in the game. You can focus on creativity instead of playing to survive. It’s a fundamental shift in the whole dynamic of play.
You got Story in my Adventure game!
So now we’ve got a nice neat yard stick to tell where a system falls on the continuum between adventure game and story game. Done! But a big source of confusion is that even if the rules are 100% traditional adventure game you can still play it in a story games style if you want to. Sort of. Up to a point.
Take D&D, old school D&D even. The players control their characters and the GM controls everything else. The characters’ chance of success is based on their character’s fictional abilities (good fighters win fights, poor fighters lose fights, etc.). But the GM could say to a player “Hey, tell me about the monastery your character came from.” Suddenly the player has some story game-style input into the fiction: their character didn’t create the monastery they were trained in, that’s the player making up things they want in the game. Or the GM could ask the group whether they want the next adventure to be more wilderness or dungeon crawling or political intrigue. Again, now the players are making contributions outside their characters.
Those examples are not that uncommon in adventure games. So hey, that makes them story games, right?
Not really. The important difference is that those contributions are arbitrary and non-binding. The GM is deciding when to ask the players for world input (if ever) and if the GM doesn’t like what they propose she can decide not to use it. The GM holds the veto. In an adventure games rules system, story game-style participation is an ad hoc privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time or never extended at all. It’s not a system.
On the other hand, if you’re a player in an adventure game and you can always decide to make “bad but interesting” decisions for your character but the penalties can be pretty brutal. Yep, it was awesome and dramatically moving to have your paladin take off his armor before the big battle to show his unshakeable faith in his god’s prophecy, but in game terms it meant you had a terrible AC and got cut down in a few rounds. Oops. Now sit and wait while everyone else finishes the fight. The adventure game doesn’t have a method to reward your decision because that’s not what it’s built to do. It doesn’t expect you to play that way.
Know which game you’re in
It goes the other way too. If you think you’re in an adventure game it can suck to discover you’re in a story game. You sit down ready to play your character and have the GM weave a believable and fantastic world full of challenges where you can get your suspension of disbelief on. Then the GM says he can’t decide whether there should elves or dwarves in the city you’re approaching and wants to know which you guys would prefer. Bubble, burst.
And that’s kind of the point of all this discussing and defining: if everyone at the table doesn’t agree about what kind of game they’re in then someone is likely to play the wrong way and have a very bad time. You may never understand why it all fell apart, just “that game sucked!” And without clear terminology and an understanding of the different kinds of role-playing games those conversations are a steep uphill slog. In the dark. With wolves.
(Here’s the part where I say something controversial that derails the whole discussion)
If you think about it, since the very dawn of RPGs players have been playing adventure games but GMs have been playing story games. GMs have always had the power to affect the game outside of any particular characters they control. It’s what GMs do.
What he's describing is essentially a scale, not a binary switch, based around the following element:
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. In other words, OOC mechanics, player-facing mechanics, whatever term you want to use. The scale as he sees it is Adventure Game---Storygame. The Adventure Game is focused solely on the character mechanically, the Storygame includes mechanics not under the character's control, but under the player's control. This idea of a mechanic divorced from the reality of the character has another name, a dissociated mechanic. Many games are almost pure Adventure Games but for one element that lets the player interfere on behalf of the character to affect an outcome. Fate, Luck, Karma, etc. The player chooses to use this mechanic, not the character. Most games these days are some kind of blend, with both Player-Choices and Character-Choices to be made.
So if it's really a sliding scale and some really old-school Adventure Games include an OOC mechanic or two, then can you really define a game as being a Storygame and not an Adventure Game?
I believe you can. Go back to the definition of a Storygame element:
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.If a game includes those elements as a key mechanic and removing them fundamentally alters the game to the point it needs redesign to function: you have a Storygame.
The thing is, there are
very few games that meet this definition. There are many games that are chock full of OOC mechanics, but are very loosely associated to the character via Effort, Stamina, etc. or the cosmology of the setting itself allows for some form of intervention. Of course, even though the character shouldn;t be able to choose this intervention definitively or probably shouldn't decide the form for most people is close enough to not being a disbelief suspender.
So what are we left with? With the pure Storygame these days being something hardly anyone would classify as a RPG, today in the RPG arena, we're mainly left with two types of games.
1. Games that are almost purely Adventure Games (ie. Traditional RPGs) that have little to no OOC mechanics or if they do have one or two, they can be removed and not affect core gameplay at all from a character's PoV.
2. Games that are a mix of IC and OOC mechanics, which to some degree may be removed but probably hamper or in someway alter core gameplay to do so.
We kind of found our binary switch, didn't we? Of course this switch has been down in my sig for a while now. ;)
A story game to me is any RPG that involves more than just killing NPCs and taking their stuff.
Some players get all fancy with how they add their own twists and turns to an unfolding story/plot during a one-shot or campaign. If you remember more about a story from a game, than who you killed and stole from, you probably played a story game of some kind. Some players remember adventure stuff, action stuff, social stuff from a game. But an actual story that could be a screenplay of some kind... story game.
Burning Wheel is hardcore story gaming. Plot trumps die mechanic. Sameoldji gives his take on it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ5HLXg-tWQ
The ironic part of what he said was the final aspect, which he said was controversial, but I don't think is controversial at all, if anything, it's axiomatic. He says GM's always Storygame, which is true to an extent.
When anyone GMs, they are constantly roleplaying every single NPC, so obviously a lot of roleplaying, but the job also demands, without option or exception, that they step outside those NPCs into the GM role. You can't constantly head-hop and always be roleplaying, you have to GM. You get to be creative, you get to storytell, you get to affect things outside your NPCs.
As a result, when I play, I don't need and sure as hell don't want a system that mimics that dual focus of IC and OOC. I get that all the time. We've basically crossed with the thread where you play someone who isn't you, well I'm a GM, so I live IC and OOC all the time. Change for me, something different for me, is being only IC when I play.
All that cool narrative control stuff, all it does is let players get a little GM freak on without all the work and responsibility. :D
Krueger, you have just started a discussion that will waste a non-trivial amount of my time for the next few days. Did you realize this? :)
Your definition is something that I would call "Fundamentally true and correct, but limited to just one aspect of the matter". In other words, useful but too narrow for general adoption.
The "slider" that you mention definitely exists - it is real, and has been out there for longer than thirty years. But the axis of "player agency" vs. "character agency" is just one of the axes along which RPGs change. There are clearly others. However this specific axis is a dealbreaker, as the presence of some of these mechanics destroys Suspension of Disbelief for a restricted, but indeed existing and well-represented, set of gamers. I ran a specific thread on "Dissociated Mechanics" on rpg.net two or three years ago, and it turned out that it is possible to identify what are potentially SoD-breaking mechanics and that the point *IS* relevant for some players.
As stated, admitted and demonstrated in several discussions, you are one of those gamers whose Suspension of Disbelief is "vulnerable" to this kind of technique. So, nothing wrong in focusing on this specific subject, as it is certainly the "slider" that has the biggest impact on your gaming experience. And you are in good company, as I can name at least one succesful game designer who has the same "vulnerability".
However, I think that while your definition is based on true, verifiable facts, and it is relevant because it identifies a real, important deal-breaker, it still misses the point. I am fairly convinced that if you apply it strictly, you will find some renowned Forge games that do not fall into your "storygame" category, and that would be weird. The point is that what you describe is a mechanic, one of the ways you can use to get what you want, but not your real focus, the reason why you have fun. As such, the definition is too "narrow" to achieve universality.
Let us try for one moment to move towards a different but somehow related definition, specifically the one that Venger Satanis uses in his recent blog post.
QuoteStorygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us.
Which I interpret as saying that the mindset with which an OSR and a SG player approach their gaming can be described as follows:
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. He will eventually stand over the masses, in terms of glory or wealth, according to how I defined his personality, but only if the dice gods allow. The world is dangerous and unforgiving, and it must be so because otherwise the sense of authenticity that is part of my enjoyment would be lost. And if my character turns out to be just one of the faceless losers who bite the dust on the path to glory, I will roll another one and still enjoy the game.
SG: I am here to be one of the protagonists of a memorable story. From the start, I have a definite idea of what makes my character unique and how it will affect play. Failure is an acceptable outcome for his adventures, but only if it comes in a heroic and remarkable way, not because of anti-climactic events or lousy die rolls. 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.
It seems to me that the whole subject of player agency is one of the methods that you can adopt to obtain the goal that the storygamer's goal, but what is important is the goal itself, not the technique used. You and others tend, IMO, to identify cause and effect because "player agency", particularly if implemented with a karma/fate/benny economy, is the route that most game designers take when going towards that particular goal. It is so widespread a solution that even traditional games use these techniques nowadays - in fact, they have used them since the 80s.
For 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.
Please note also that there is more to a roleplaying game than what is written above. I suspect that this definition that Venger Satanis has cunningly postulated, albeit more encompassing than Krueger's one, represents just one of the axes of variation that you can discover while dissecting the multi-faceted experience of roleplaying.
Going to be starting work early in a bit, so don't have much time, but when we're talking about what we want from a game, if you're talking about delivering that through mechanics, then how you get it, is important, and in fact becomes the defining aspect of the game.
If Game A uses technique set A and Game B uses technique set B, then those are important, especially when technique set B completely prevents me from attaining my goal by it's very methods. If my goal is to roleplay IC, then OOC mechanics cannot get me there. Period.
Have time for one more. :)
The idea that Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us. is only part of the issue, because you can do both with a system that does not use mechanical enforcement of the Storygamer's goal.
As was described in the Ars Ludi article, you can choose to make decisions with an eye toward the story, and attempt to make decisions from an OOC point of view, and the game itself doesn't care either way. There is no mechanical impediment to your OOC attempt, but there also is no OOC enforcement. There is no guarantee that you can affect the outcome.
In a system that chooses to support the Storygamer's goal, then there is mechanical enforcement for the OOC manipulation of in-game events, to varying degrees.
Now, at some point, the more OOC mechanics you provide in order to mechanically enforce the Storygamer's goal, you begin to actually mechanically impede the goals of those who do not want OOC engagement.
We're kind of back to the old argument that a "physics engine" system doesn't prevent any playstyles or player goals, even if it doesn't actively support any either, where a "coherent" game that actively supports one playstyle or goal will almost always do so at the active impediment of other playstyles or goals.
I see Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us. as simply being another way of phrasing the idea that a roleplayer has IC motivations while a storygamer, narrative roleplayer, whatever, has IC and OOC motivations.
QuoteGoing to be starting work early in a bit, so don't have much time, but when we're talking about what we want from a game, if you're talking about delivering that through mechanics, then how you get it, is important, and in fact becomes the defining aspect of the game.
I 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.
My games have always had a fair amount of OOC player agency. I let the players define the world almost as much as I do. "Yes, and ..."
I can't possibly describe everything that might exist in the world, so if a player comes up with something reasonable I make it so. Note, it must be reasonable. A player whose character has been stripped to a loincloth and tossed in a prison cell reaching into his loincloth and pulling out a Kill-O-Zap Raygun is not reasonable. A lock pick might be, depending on the character.
Want 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.
I also prefer campaigns and adventures that tell a story that is more than just a string of random encounters. My days of dungeon crawling in random rooms and passageways are long behind me.
I still play games that were published in the '70s. I have and play the originals so I am not usually much attracted to retro-clones. The OSR seems to be a lot of games duplicating what I already have.
Does all of this make me a "story gamer"? An "old school gamer"? I just think of myself as a gamer.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910218The idea that Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us. is only part of the issue, because you can do both with a system that does not use mechanical enforcement of the Storygamer's goal.
As was described in the Ars Ludi article, you can choose to make decisions with an eye toward the story, and attempt to make decisions from an OOC point of view, and the game itself doesn't care either way. There is no mechanical impediment to your OOC attempt, but there also is no OOC enforcement. There is no guarantee that you can affect the outcome.
In a system that chooses to support the Storygamer's goal, then there is mechanical enforcement for the OOC manipulation of in-game events, to varying degrees.
Now, at some point, the more OOC mechanics you provide in order to mechanically enforce the Storygamer's goal, you begin to actually mechanically impede the goals of those who do not want OOC engagement.
I see no real controversy here. What you describe is "different technical ways of achieving the same goal", which is what I begun with. And the fact that "some mechanics that enable goal A may also prevent goal B", which is implied in my description. Note the point about the OSR requiring that the world be realistically dangerous to keep the "sense of authenticity" alive. It's a classic case where techniquest that facilitate experience B also steer you away from experience A. We are still on the same page so far.
QuoteWe're kind of back to the old argument that a "physics engine" system doesn't prevent any playstyles or player goals, even if it doesn't actively support any either, where a "coherent" game that actively supports one playstyle or goal will almost always do so at the active impediment of other playstyles or goals.
I see no argument here. This is exactly what Forge theory says (except that it always talks about goals, never about "playstyles", so let us avoid the latter word). So if you agree with this point, this can be taken as granted: everyone agrees with the statement, no controversy.
However, although this fact is not contested, the two movements give an extremely different judgement about its desirability. I have debated it a godzillion of times on countless forums: mere reliance on "world physics" creates fun for an OS gamer, frustration for a storygamer.
An OSR advocate will not give a damn about not knowing in advance what particular creative agenda will emerge from a game, nor bitch about not being able to extract a great story from 19 games out of 20 because lousy die rolls can end a great epic with a TPK at any moment. It's part of his fun. He wants it. Speed in obtaining the desirable goal (a great epic) is sacrificed to guarantee the important goal of "keeping the world coherent and consistent". This is what Venger calls "waiting for the story to come to you".
OTOH, a storygamer does not give a damn about "realism" and "plausibility". In fact, a lot of storygamers advocate that realism does not exist because their favourite games cannot implement it or they would fail to reach their goal :) The ability to implement different agendas with a single game is sacrificed in order to guarantee that a single, chosen agenda will certainly emerge, and that it will do it in a few sessions, sometimes in a couple of hours, instead of waiting for things to happen "naturally" as they do in a classic game. This is what Venger calls "going towards the story".
Which of the two is better is debatable. And ultimately, most likely a matter of taste.
I think the original "spoilered" text should be shortened to this one line from it.
QuoteIn 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.
To 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.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;910176A story game to me is any RPG that involves more than just killing NPCs and taking their stuff.
So, by your definition...
Cyberpunk 2020: Heists, capers and pursuing private, hopeless wars against corps. Deadly combat, high mortality. Storygame?
GURPS: Generic system, heavy detail in skills and customization. Storygame?
Champions/Hero: Supers, book so thick with rules you could stop small arms with it. Storygame?
Runequest: Avoiding combat is wise, as you are very killable. Storygame?
Just a sampling.. but I think your definition needs work. :)
Quote from: Coffee Zombie;910232
Just a sampling.. but I think your definition needs work. :)
When someone asked for a "story game" definition on G+, I said "I think that might be like asking to define the OSR". :p
From what I've seen my definition of RPG versus storygame is as follows:
An RPG is a game whose mechanics focus on simulation of character activities with the player mostly focused on control of one or more characters which are his or hers in a setting.
A Stoygame is a game whose mechanics focus on determining who has narrative control at a given point in the game. A player in a storygame may have a character associated with them, but the mechanics of the game will determine how much more influence the player has beyond that character.
In an RPG, players may have greater narrative control based on the social contract between those playing. This is often an unspoken agreement based on familiarity and similar play goals of participants.
In a Storygame, narrative control is strictly regulated by mechanics, as the whole point of the game is that narrative control.
This is clear as silver trumpet.
I don't have much time to post, but it is my sincere hope that this thread and definition will be educational as I see more arguments, misunderstandings and ill will over these essential differences than any other topic I have seen on this site.
Ars Lundi/CRKrueger's definitions (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)) get to the heart of the core differences between what I have called "traditional" games and story games, and these differences are so acute in my mind that it has sometimes been difficult for me to accept story games as RPGs as they seem to me, a completely different animal. After reading this post, I think I am wrong in that judgement. However, these are very different play-styles that can be, and sometimes are, mechanically enforced by the game rules/system. Failure to understand these differences can lead to a lot of misunderstanding, and more importantly - bad games. I like the term "adventure game" to differentiate games that are focused on IC play as opposed to "story game" for RPGs that focus on or force OOC play. Both, I think can be covered under the umbrella of "RPGs" (as a term), but it helps if we understand the differences and don't try to pretend like they create the same kinds of play experiences.
I also like the recognition that there is a sliding scale between these two poles. I consider myself a pretty hard core adventure game GM. However, even I encourage story game "privileges" to players on downtime, and in-between sessions, and even allow hero points or other OOC mechanics in some games. Adventure games commonly use some story game elements, and these can be incorporated or removed fairly easily via GM fiat. I can't think of any conditions where an adventure game is mechanically exclusive of story game elements - they can slide up and down at the GM's will. Some story games, like FATE, demonstrate the sliding scale as well. FATE is clearly a story game and was designed as such, yet it can be played IC in adventure game mode if you ignore/remove some of the story game elements. I've done it, and it may be an interesting anecdote that it was my players, not me, that rejected the OOC mechanics when we played FATE. On the other hand, some story games have OOC mechanical elements baked into the system that cannot easily be removed. Modiphius 2d20 is a good example. It cannot be played as an adventure game because the mechanics force the players to make OOC decisions on a regular basis and the system simply does not function without those OOC elements.
I think Venger's definition, "Storygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us," really just muddies the water, and though it may be a common aspect, it does nothing to address the essential differences between the two types of games, their mechanics, or play styles. I do think the statement is generally true: in an adventure game the story is derived from play and in a story game play is derived from the story. We had some long threads on these very topics that did not resolve anything - I think - because it is not the core difference. Rather, it is a generalization that is not always true, and more importantly it is simply a consequence of the fundamental difference between OOC an IC play and the mechanics that encourage or enforce it.
QuoteIn 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.
That was what I always thought, but the definition somehow got lost in all the talk here. So, Houses of the Blooded is a story game by this definition. Great, then I know at least one story game that I love :D
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. :D
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. :D
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. :P
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;910211QuoteStorygamers 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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/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).
Quote from: CRKrueger;910367Well, 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 roleplaying game is a game where the focus is on playing a character interacting with an imagined setting where the players actions and knowledge are limited to what the character can do or know within the setting.
Now for tabletop, the interactions are handled by a human referee.
For CRPGs and MMORPGs, the interactions are handled by algorithms running on a computer. For CRPGs the game is self contained with everything running on the player's computer. For MMORPGs, the game is running on a server which is handling thousands of characters interacting with the setting and each other.
For live-action, the interactions are handled in part by sporting rules designs to emulate the setting, and the rest by a human event staff handling adjudications when needed, and running the NPCs characters.
All these are roleplaying game where the focus is playing character interacting with a setting.
It is not the rules that make a game a RPG but the focus of the campaign that is run using those rules.
The clearest example of the difference is Metagaming's Melee/Wizards vs. The Fantasy Trip.
While Melee/Wizards features the players playing individual character the focus of the game was on a competition between opposing sides where each player's characters fight out. That was the point of both initial releases of Melee/Wizard.
Of course because it handled individual combat and spell casting it was obvious to the people of the time that could be used as the foundation for a complete RPG. And because it sold well, metagaming did the work to take Melee and Wizard and make a follow up versions that were part of the Th Fantasy Trip RPG.
Another example of the divide is SPI Freedom in the Galaxy and WEG's Star War RPG. Both address the exact same premise of the Star Wars film. Both had individual character, a galaxy spanning rebellion where control of individual planet was important, and starship/ground combat. However Freedom in the Galaxy is a wargame because the focus was on a Rebel Player trying to defeat an Imperial Player while the focus of Star Wars RPG was to play a character interacting with the Star Wars setting.
However Freedom in the Galaxy could be used as an RPG and the Star Wars RPG could be run as a wargame. I could say the result would be that great but I have known people who had done just that. I seen SPI's Middle Earth wargame and SPI' Swords & Sorcery also used as an RPG. The reason both featured detailed character stats and individual combat as part of the overall wargame.
In the end is not the game that makes a set of rules an RPG but whether you use those rules to run an RPG campaign.
One reason is there is a so much debate is that even today people are used to thinking that a game is the sum of it rules. However what revolunatary about RPGs are not the rules but rather the structure and flow of a RPG campaign. That was the part that Arneson and Gygax created that was never seen before. That why despite the use of roleplaying in psychology, Gygax and Arneson are THE creators of roleplaying games. They were first to put together all the pieces to create a template called the RPG campaign that anybody can learn and follow.
Run a campaign one way it is a wargame, run it another way with the same set of rules it is a rpg, run it a third way again with using the same rules it is a story-game. It not the rule but what the group does with the rules that make it one thing or the other.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910175What he's describing is essentially a scale, not a binary switch, based around the following element: 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. In other words, OOC mechanics, player-facing mechanics, whatever term you want to use.
True, we can agree on that:).
And if we could come to a conclusion which mechanics are those, which applied in
all cases*, it would actually be an useful distinction...
But as it stands, it's about as useful as "the games the RPG Pundit dislikes", minus the ability to just ask the Pundit;).
*I mean apart from obvious cases like "I spend a meta-resource to have something happen". Is a Luck point, when used to negate penalties to a roll, a matter of effort, or the favour of the Goddess of Luck?
What about a world where the Goddess of Luck is proven to exist?
What about the same point allowing you to keep fighting after a hit to an often-lethal location, because the attack didn't hit a blood vessel, or otherwise was less fatal than it could have been?
And then we come to the fact that some people divorce the Might attribute from physical might, and make it about "how much results you can achieve in the current storline using your physical ability". Meaning the couch potato might have higher Might than the body-builder:D.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;910414This has been explained and addressed more than 10 years ago.
Talked about. Not addressed.
QuoteWhile 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.
Then avoid the fallacy of reification and discuss the games and the game rules, not the gamers.
QuoteSimple 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).
Except the rules of Pendragon don't provide a play experience of Righteous and Virtuous knights pursuing glory. The rules allow that, but the exact same rules allow a quest for glory by wicked, cruel, and vengeful knights...or as is quite commonly seen in a game of Pendragon, lustful, boastful, but generous knights. The quest for glory is there in the game, because Glory is what Pendragon calls it's experience points. With a minor modification to the system for calculating Glory for other types of actions than defeating knights and monsters and winning tournaments one could incentivize almost any sort of behavior. Moreover, the passions and traits system used in Pendragon was first developed to roleplay inhuman dragonewts in Glorantha not Arthurian Knights. Subsequent to its use in Pendragon, Dave Dunham used the passions and traits system and the Pendragon combat system to play human barbarians (Orlanthi and Grazelanders mostly) in Dragon Pass in his Pendragon Pass rules. Which adapt Runequest spells to the Pendragon combat system and add in Gloranthan cultural views on what traits and passions are valued.
QuoteConclusion: 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.
Then talk about the rules. Venger's definition ignores the rules.
QuoteThis 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.
I agree the definition of a story game should be tied to the mechanics of the story game. Venger's definition says nothing about rules. Only what the goals of the players happen to be.
QuoteDoes this make this "hardcore forgie" game a "non-storygame", then?
Maybe it does. I never played it nor read it. What, other than the vague and uninformative "forgie" label, leads you to claim that it is not?
Quote from: estar;910431It is not the rules that make a game a RPG but the focus of the campaign that is run using those rules.
Its not the campaign.
QuoteA roleplaying game is a game where the focus is on playing a character interacting with an imagined setting where the players actions and knowledge are limited to what the character can do or know within the setting.
This definition applies equally to a campaign or to a one-shot.
QuoteIn the end is not the game that makes a set of rules an RPG but whether you use those rules to run an RPG campaign.
Again no.
The idea and practice of running campaigns came from miniatures wargaming which had already used the continuity of this week's setup is shaped by what happened last week and this week's outcomes will shape next week's setup as well as the experience and training can improve the abilities of units that is key to the traditional Arnesonian and Gygaxian D&D campaign. Roleplaying and campaigns are disconnected. You can have either one without using the other.
I see a couple of different aspects that have been brought up, including: (1) players attention and focus during the game, (2) use of out-of-character mechanics by players, (3) focus on action other than fighting. I think a lot of people tend to associate these together.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910367The 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?
I think this is a good idea to focus on specific cases of games. Estar brought up the cases of Melee/Wizard and Freedom in the Galaxy - which have purely in-character mechanics but aren't considered RPGs generally.
There are also games considered story games that don't have out-of-character mechanics. Rosen McStern brought up 3:16 - Carnage Among the Stars. I think a stronger case is a game like "The Mothers" where you play mothers struggling with post-partum depression. Everything you do is in-character - you're just talking about your problems, and what's been happening with your body, and so forth. However, I think most people would characterize it more as a story game than a role-playing game. Likewise with "Sign", where you play deaf children in Nicaragua learning to communicate.
Some games have very abstracted mechanics, like Tunnels & Trolls where all of combat is summed up as just trying to beat the combined opponents' total.
Conversely, in a game like My Life With Master - the players don't have out-of-character abilities per se, but resolution is highly abstracted into only certain rolls against the stats of Love, Self-Loathing, and Weariness.
Quote from: jhkim;910459I think a stronger case is a game like "The Mothers" where you play mothers struggling with post-partum depression.
That sounds like the type of roleplaying exercise one might see in either an acting or a counseling workshop. But as described, it doesn't sound like a
game.
Quote from: Bren;910445The idea and practice of running campaigns came from miniatures wargaming which had already used the continuity of this week's setup is shaped by what happened last week and this week's outcomes will shape next week's setup as well as the experience and training can improve the abilities of units that is key to the traditional Arnesonian and Gygaxian D&D campaign. Roleplaying and campaigns are disconnected. You can have either one without using the other.
I am well aware that overall, campaigns are a series of interrelated sessions of gameplay. But like novels, plays, films, sports, there are specific types of campaigns. The type I was referring to are tabletop roleplaying campaigns, focused on playing characters interacting with an imagined setting. My point that another type of campaign, one that is focused on collaborative storytelling has developed over the years. And that what the campaign is focused on is the significant difference not the rules.
I will state the obvious that of course it easier and less work to use a set of rules where the author focuses on running storygame campaigns versus rules where the author focuses on a traditional roleplaying campaign. However when you start designing rules focused on defining individual characters and what they can do what you get is extraordinary flexible so there is considerable overlap in utility despite the differences in focus. As well as the fact both types of campaigns deal with a setting that potentially could be an entire world with everything in it. Again something that inherently flexible.
And the campaign format itself is likely inherently flexible. There is no reason that a part of a campaign can be run using a wargame, another use a tabletop roleplaying game, and another part still using a storygame. But as a rule this extreme form of kitbashing is the exception not the norm.
The combination of the flexibility of all three of these elements means that there is never going to be a hard and fast line. Instead there is going to be a spectrum. But it is useful to understand exactly where things become clearly one thing or another because that helps the group to pick the best tools for them to run the campaign they want.
From personal experience, the consideration I have to make for a miniature wargaming campaign are not the same for tabletop roleplaying campaign, which are not the same for the story game campaign I participated nor the same for CRPGS, MMORPGS, and LARP campaigns. There were some common elements between all of them but differences in focuses meant what I had to do to prepare, play, and manage them are also different.
In short I know what damn campaign is and it history.
Quote from: jhkim;910459There are also games considered story games that don't have out-of-character mechanics. Rosen McStern brought up 3:16 - Carnage Among the Stars. I think a stronger case is a game like "The Mothers" where you play mothers struggling with post-partum depression. Everything you do is in-character - you're just talking about your problems, and what's been happening with your body, and so forth. However, I think most people would characterize it more as a story game than a role-playing game. Likewise with "Sign", where you play deaf children in Nicaragua learning to communicate.
Your example here illustrate why I feel that the issues is that there are two different types of campaigns have different focuses and it not the rules that define the different. I see a lot of games embraced and lauded by the storygame communities that don't have a lot of or any metagame mechanics. The use of metagame mechanics appears to be common but it not a hard and fast rule.
My opinion what is a hard and fast rules is what the group is focused on when running the campaign itself. Are they playing together to create a story? Or they pretending to be people in some other place and/or time.
And there can be and are hybrid with groups do a little bit of both. For example in Ars Magica, the covenant is a result of a collaboration between everybody participating in the campaign. And there is more than a few paragraph devoted to how a group can rotate the responsibilities of being the referee. However the expectation is that at any one time, there is a referee doing the adjudication, and the players can only do what the character they are playing at the time can do.
Quote from: estar;910466My point that another type of campaign, one that is focused on collaborative storytelling has developed over the years. And that what the campaign is focused on is the significant difference not the rules.
As I said, a single adventure or a single session can focus on roleplaying. You don't need a series of sessions. The one-shot adventure is just as much roleplaying as an extended campaign. This shows that "campaign" as a series of connected sessions is irrelevant to the definition of what is or is not a roleplaying or a storytelling game. To make campaign relevant, you need to claim that a single session is a campaign and at that point the word "campaign" has lost any useful meaning.
QuoteIn short I know what damn campaign is and it history.
Perhaps. But you seem unfamiliar with roleplaying outside of an extended campaign.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;910211Krueger, you have just started a discussion that will waste a non-trivial amount of my time for the next few days. Did you realize this? :)
Your definition is something that I would call "Fundamentally true and correct, but limited to just one aspect of the matter". In other words, useful but too narrow for general adoption.
The "slider" that you mention definitely exists - it is real, and has been out there for longer than thirty years. But the axis of "player agency" vs. "character agency" is just one of the axes along which RPGs change. There are clearly others. However this specific axis is a dealbreaker, as the presence of some of these mechanics destroys Suspension of Disbelief for a restricted, but indeed existing and well-represented, set of gamers. I ran a specific thread on "Dissociated Mechanics" on rpg.net two or three years ago, and it turned out that it is possible to identify what are potentially SoD-breaking mechanics and that the point *IS* relevant for some players.
As stated, admitted and demonstrated in several discussions, you are one of those gamers whose Suspension of Disbelief is "vulnerable" to this kind of technique. So, nothing wrong in focusing on this specific subject, as it is certainly the "slider" that has the biggest impact on your gaming experience. And you are in good company, as I can name at least one succesful game designer who has the same "vulnerability".
However, I think that while your definition is based on true, verifiable facts, and it is relevant because it identifies a real, important deal-breaker, it still misses the point. I am fairly convinced that if you apply it strictly, you will find some renowned Forge games that do not fall into your "storygame" category, and that would be weird. The point is that what you describe is a mechanic, one of the ways you can use to get what you want, but not your real focus, the reason why you have fun. As such, the definition is too "narrow" to achieve universality.
Let us try for one moment to move towards a different but somehow related definition, specifically the one that Venger Satanis uses in his recent blog post.
Which I interpret as saying that the mindset with which an OSR and a SG player approach their gaming can be described as follows:
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. He will eventually stand over the masses, in terms of glory or wealth, according to how I defined his personality, but only if the dice gods allow. The world is dangerous and unforgiving, and it must be so because otherwise the sense of authenticity that is part of my enjoyment would be lost. And if my character turns out to be just one of the faceless losers who bite the dust on the path to glory, I will roll another one and still enjoy the game.
SG: I am here to be one of the protagonists of a memorable story. From the start, I have a definite idea of what makes my character unique and how it will affect play. Failure is an acceptable outcome for his adventures, but only if it comes in a heroic and remarkable way, not because of anti-climactic events or lousy die rolls. 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.
It seems to me that the whole subject of player agency is one of the methods that you can adopt to obtain the goal that the storygamer's goal, but what is important is the goal itself, not the technique used. You and others tend, IMO, to identify cause and effect because "player agency", particularly if implemented with a karma/fate/benny economy, is the route that most game designers take when going towards that particular goal. It is so widespread a solution that even traditional games use these techniques nowadays - in fact, they have used them since the 80s.
For 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.
Please note also that there is more to a roleplaying game than what is written above. I suspect that this definition that Venger Satanis has cunningly postulated, albeit more encompassing than Krueger's one, represents just one of the axes of variation that you can discover while dissecting the multi-faceted experience of roleplaying.
You bring up a good point - that a modicum of storygaming has slowly been trickling into traditional and OSR gaming for years! I, myself, probably incorporate somewhere around 15% of storygame RPG techniques in the sessions I GM.
VS
Here's my shot at it.
To the degree that you play the game by playing a role it's a roleplaying game. This seems obvious to the point of being trite. It's also pretty cut and dry.
To the degree that players are allowed to narrate things outside of the role of the character they are playing and have that accepted as narrative 'truth' that is storytelling.
To the degree that this 'narrative authority' is governed by game rules that are meta to the narrative/simulation you have a story game.
So, just by way of example. You could play a session of D&D in which all that happens is that the players make up the life stories of their characters and tell them to each other while remaining in character.
Were they playing a role playing game? I would say yes.
Were they engaged in story telling? I would say yes.
Were they playing a story game? I would say no, at least in the specific sense the term has taken on.
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. Venger is talking about defining
people's goals, Krueger is attempting to define
games. Venger's definition may work for what he is trying to accomplish but I think it needlessly complicates and confuses the issue of: What type of game am I playing or buying?
For me, I think it would be much more useful to accurately label the games we play than to try to label the people we play with. I can ask a player what they want from a game, I don't need a label for them, but it would be very useful to know if I am purchasing a boardgame, a computer game, a miniatures game, an RPG, or a storygame - because even though there is often considerable crossover between them, they are clearly different categories.
QuoteOriginally posted by Coffee Zombie
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.
This, what I highlighted above, really bothers me (though it may be a sub-conscious word choice). Story games are
not RPGs 2.0: the new and improved way to play, as is implied by the word "evolution."
QuoteThe 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.
When I asked Nathan Dowdell why the new Conan RPG turned the GM into a truncated vending machine, he told me "while there are plenty of good GMs out there, you can't design assuming that the GM knows what he's doing. It's a fundamental problem with the hobby." :eek: :confused:
Sorry Nathan (and no offense at all to you Coffee), but protectionism from the big bad GM, and playing to the lowest common denominator, is a pretty piss poor excuse for game design -
if we consider and label the game as an RPG. If the game is something else, then that's fine, go ahead and assume that your audience needs help with creativity and judgement. One of the great things about RPGs from 1974 on is the assumption that players have brains, minds of their own and know how to make the game work for them better than the game designers do. Gygax assumed that RPers were intelligent, Dowdell assumes they're not intelligent enough to run a good Conan game without being spoonfed and told what not to do. How's that for "evolution?" (and yes, I am bitter about that game and the condescending conversations I had with Modiphius' designers).
I don't mean to come off as hostile. There is nothing wrong with story games or the people who enjoy them. In fact, I think the whole phenomenon is really quite cool. My problem is that they are lumped into RPGs, or categorized by some as RPG superior, when they are really something different entirely.
The core difference is that story games demand (or provide - depending on your perspective) OoC player agency, RPGs do not. Player goals (Venger's definition) has to do with what kind of game a group chooses to play. That's important, but it does not describe the game itself (as an RPG, boardgame, miniatures game, collaborative storytelling game or whatever). How does a group that have defined themselves along Venger's definition know what they are getting into if a game designer insists his apples are really oranges when he know damn well it's not true? If a game designer has collaborative story telling in mind, and the game is designed with OoC mechanics to enhance or enforce it, he should say so, and not push his game off as an "evolved" RPG in an effort to capture sales - that's exactly what Modiphius did.
QuoteOriginally posted by Spinachcat
Storygames are games that belong in the Other Games forum
This is really the heart of the issue, at least for me. Are story games different enough from traditional RPGs (or "adventure games") that they need to be categorized separately?
They are for me because my groups and I do not enjoy games that force OoC player decisions. It totally kills the RPG experience for us. My players look at me land ask "what the hell is this crap - you're the GM - do your job and let me play my character."
I don't begrudge anybody their fun, and many people here perhaps rightfully say "who cares?" But for my part, labeling storygames as such would have saved me time, money, arguments, and broken unhappy game sessions.
Quote(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)
Although, how should we account for a player's skill being an important factor in his character's chances to do A, B, or C? I believe player skill was mentioned prominently in the old school primer booklet. Maybe someone can find a quote. Maybe specify that player skill needs to be channeled through one's character and not in some meta-game narrative control mechanic? Also, I haven't read all the comments in this thread - pressed for time. Sorry!
VS
Quote from: Bren;910470As I said, a single adventure or a single session can focus on roleplaying. You don't need a series of sessions.
And you are correct, but for the purpose of setting up a campaign versus a one-shot there are only a few difference in the kind of preparation that the referee does only perhaps the amount of what he has to do. As for the player there is virtually difference as to what to do to prepare.
Because of that I view it accurate to say that a Tabletop RPG campaign can be considered as one or more session of play. It is not limited to saying it has to be two more sessions. And that the considerations as to what to focus on for multiple sessions campaigns are the same for a single session.
And you are sta
Quote from: Bren;910470The one-shot adventure is just as much roleplaying as an extended campaign.
I clarified what I meant by a Tabletop RPG campaign by the above paragraph. You are trying to argue over the definition of campaigns and what campaigns.
Quote from: Bren;910470This shows that "campaign" as a series of connected sessions is irrelevant to the definition of what is or is not a roleplaying or a storytelling game.
When I say campaign I am referring to ONE or more sessions of play. If you want to debate the definition of campaign make another thread.
As for why I consider it one or more sessions instead of say two or more. It is because what you do for a one-shot is not meaningfully different for the referee or players except in perhaps the raw volume of work that one puts in. So rather than write it all fucking out, I just use campaign to refer to both. And I referred to campaigns in this way multiple times on this forum in multiple threads so how I use the word campaign shouldn't be news to any long term poster.
Quote from: Manzanaro;910478So, just by way of example. You could play a session of D&D in which all that happens is that the players make up the life stories of their characters and tell them to each other while remaining in character.
Were they playing a role playing game? I would say yes.
Were they engaged in story telling? I would say yes.
Were they playing a story game? I would say no, at least in the specific sense the term has taken on.
You raise a good point that the question "is it a game" also needs to be considered. Story telling can occur without the process being much of a game.
We could say the rules for a storytelling game are that (i) we all sit in a circle, (ii) we take turns going clockwise around the circle to tell stories, (iii) that each story has to connect to and build on the previous story (or stories), (iv) we could even specify that we roll dice, draw a high card, or have a rock-paper-scissors contest to see who goes first to tell the first story. I guess that's a game in a similar sense that charades is a game. But for my money, it isn't enough of a game that it really needs to be called
The Storytelling Game ~™ instead of just calling it,
Group Storytelling.
But the example of the players telling stories about their D&D characters is just as much storytelling but even less a
game than is my
The Storytelling Game ~™.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479This, what I highlighted above, really bothers me (though it may be a sub-conscious word choice). Story games are not RPGs 2.0: the new and improved way to play, as is implied by the word "evolution."
Technically evolution doesn't imply improvement, it just means more fit to survive and replicate in a given environment. But in the colloquial sense evolution does include the notion of improvement so I get why it is annoying.
Currently I'm playing and running Honor+Intrigue, it's a much newer game than is WEG's Star Wars D6, which is what we were playing before switching over to H+I. But just because it was written and published later, does not mean it is a better game. It's a different game. I think it is better in some respects (mainly in the detailed combat rules facilitating sword fighting and dueling). This makes it a better game for playing swashbucklers and pirates. But it's not better for playing Star Wars, except possibly in that it could be adapted to provide a better system for lightsaber duels. But in the ten years I played and ran Star Wars we had maybe six lightsaber duels total. So the vast majority of the time, H+I would be much more machinery than needed or desired and thus I find it much worse for playing Star Wars. I’m sure if we looked hard enough we could find some gamer, somewhere with the opposite point of view.
QuoteWhen I asked Nathan Dowdell why the new Conan RPG turned the GM into a truncated vending machine, he told me "while there are plenty of good GMs out there, you can't design assuming that the GM knows what he's doing. It's a fundamental problem with the hobby." :eek: :confused:
OK. Might be true. But it isn't like the players are all good players. Why in the world would one assume that the players know what they are doing anymore than does the GM?
QuoteMy problem is that they are lumped into RPGs, or categorized by some as RPG superior, when they are really something different entirely.
I think it is more accurate to view games as being on a continuum. So the differences are matters of degree, not two things that are altogether different in kind.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479but I think it needlessly complicates and confuses the issue of: What type of game am I playing or buying?
I think it not going to be resolve either. Once a games starts interesting mechanics to define characters and what they can and can't do along with world building, it because inherently flexible enough to handle a great deal many things.
What matters after this point is what kind of advice the author focuses on and what tools he writes to support what he focuses. That what needs to be made explicit. An author can easily present a version of OD&D focused on collaborative storytelling if that what interest them. If I was that author, I would lake it is abundantly clear what I am focusing on in the intro, marketing and the packaging so you the consumer can easily determine if the product is one you are interested.
That why in all the stuff I do for Majestic Wilderlands i make it clear that is based on the campaign I ran for 30 years and that is mostly focuses on the adventure that arises out of the clash of the politics, religion, and culture. It goes down to the individual section so people understand why things like my Elves are great in terms of mechanics and why everybody doesn't just play an Elf in my campaign. If I didn't do that then any criticism I receive would be justified because I failed to explain what it was for.
One of my criticism of the storygame hobby is how they misled others and themselves as to thinking it Tabletop Roleplaying 2.0. Part of the misconception is because everything is on a spectrum with any type of roleplaying game. Once you start focusing on individual characters and include worldbuilding a setting anything can be kitbashed in to produce the campaign the group wants to play.
I think focusing a campaign on collabrative storytelling with a game is interesting, but it has little to do with pretending to be a character having interesting adventures in an imagined setting. Even tho both have individual character, both feature world building and both use game mechanics as a tool. Making a story and playing a character are two very different goals.
Quote from: VengerSatanis;910481Although, how should we account for a player's skill being an important factor in his character's chances to do A, B, or C?
Traditional roleplaying adapted wargame mechanics in such a way to allow people to pretend to be character in an imagined setting. Before Arneson and Gygax innovations, most campaigns and session had a definitive goal in sight. To win the battle, to win the war. To because the most powerful nations, etc. The game had victory conditions.
Starting Arneson's Blackmoor, the victory conditions started to go away. Players were still trying to win but winning individual encounters to further some nebulous goal in their mind. Sort of like how real life plays out. So mastery of the mechanics was a very useful skill to winning all these encounters so the player can get what he wants. In often this was done as part of a team of other players working together in common interest.
Fundamentally that was all in-game. The goals, the means, and how, arose from the circumstance of the campaign.
With Storygame that all shifts to producing a good story through the use of a game. The only winning condition that an interesting story was produced that everybody contributed too. I can't see working well if one or more participants keep trying to push their character to "win"
Here's a quote from Bren:
"But the example of the players telling stories about their D&D characters is just as much storytelling but even less a game than is my The Storytelling Game ~™."
Let's imagine you had shown up for the D&D game with no one planning for the session to be purely in character story telling, but it just happened to go there. Would you feel like you had not played D&D? It may sound like a bit of a stretch, but I (and I'm sure many others) have certainly played sessions in which the actual codified game rules were barely referred to. Yet I still consider those sessions to be examples of playing a roleplaying game, and not simply roleplaying.
This kind of thing is why I feel it is often better to consider individual mechanics rather than to categorize entire games. In particular, as observed elsewhere in this thread, a lot of modern RPGs include Story Game elements, such as meta resources that allow players authority to define narrative elements outside of their characters, or otherwise expand player interaction with the game outside of a pure context of playing a particular role.
EDIT: On a side note, I find an earlier comment about GMs always having "story game" type powers to be a very good observation and for me it raises the question of what exactly is the GM's motivation in a typical traditional roleplaying game? To what effect do most GMs employ their Story game powers or narrative authority or whatever you want to call it? Not looking to sidetrack the thread, but just something to consider.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Bren
OK. Might be true. But it isn't like the players are all good players. Why in the world would one assume that the players know what they are doing anymore than does the GM?
I'm not quite sure that we're communicating on the same lines. Nathan suggested that storygame rules were necessary to protect players from sucky GMs. On the other hand, if I get what you're saying, yeah it doesn't really follow that if "GM sucking" is a real problem in the designer's eyes that he should assume that players would be any better at handling GM authority/powers.
QuoteOriginally Posted by estar
What matters after this point is what kind of advice the author focuses on and what tools he writes to support what he focuses. That what needs to be made explicit. An author can easily present a version of OD&D focused on collaborative storytelling if that what interest them.
I fully acknowledge that there is crossover, that many RPGs have story elements and many story games have RPG elements, and that in most games you have some choice in which elements you want to emphasize to compliment your preferred playstyle for your game. Written advice may play into that, especially in a flexible game, but the bottom line is the "tools" or mechanics.
My primary issue is when a Story Game
forces OoC behavior and decisions from players and/or limits GM authority in some way that is baked in to the mechanics. No amount of advice can overturn this. In this case, the game cannot effectively be altered to be played as a traditional experience of players taking the roles of characters interacting with GM created and controlled setting. Most games are flexible in their use of story based mechanics (BoL or many other game's Hero points are easily removed and are not terribly offensive in the first place, and you can even strip FATE of it's story mechanics and have a rough playable traditional game), but some games do not function without their story based OoC and/or GM limiting mechanics (again, I am looking at 2d20 ).
QuoteOriginally Posted by Bren
I think it is more accurate to view games as being on a continuum. So the differences are matters of degree, not two things that are altogether different in kind.
Yeah, but you need to draw the line somewhere. DBM is a miniatures game even if I pretend to be Alexander the Great while I am playing it. For me, storygames draw the line and cease to be RPGs when they cannot be played as a traditional RPG due to OoC player mechanics or GM limitations that cannot be removed from the system.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;910414This 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.
Sadly, yes. This is why I totally support Venger Satanis in his call for a truce in the other thread.
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.
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".
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.
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).
The character
does not choose to invoke a flashback. "Crap, I just took a kill that would have moved me from Crippled to Dead, so I decide to invoke a Weakness, and use a Flashback to describe how the history of my character lets me escape certain death." No.
This is not an IC choice by
any stretch of the imagination. You are exiting your character, entering a 3rd person authorial stance, declaring the invocation of the Flashback mechanic as a Player, and then entering the character again to narrate the Flashback. But I would also hesitate to call the Flashback itself a roleplaying exercise, it's a narrative exercise. There is no roleplay in a Flashback when you think about it. It's creative storytelling and narrative authority used to create history. Look at the following example:
If I am roleplaying a character sitting in a bar, and an NPC asks me why he should hire me, my PC tells him a story which gives him that reason. I am doing one of the following here:
- Roleplaying my character bullshitting the NPC. I am roleplaying my PC, and my PC is creating a story out of whole cloth. 100% Roleplaying.
- Roleplaying my character telling a story about something my PC actually did in game. I am roleplaying my PC, and my PC is telling a story about his actual history, embellishing or not, but the embellishments are just that. 100% Roleplaying
- Roleplaying my character telling a story about something my PC did not actually do in game, but is assumed to be true because I have the Narrative Authority to declare everything about my PC true. I am roleplaying my PC, and I, as a player, am now generating the history of my character through storytelling. Maybe 50% Roleplaying, if you're being overly generous.
3:16 uses the third option. The player invokes the Flashback to save or help the character, and the player narrates the Flashback, which then becomes true history of the character.
Now if 3:16 were a Space Marine game based on GURPS, with the Flashback mechanic, then you remove the Flashback mechanic and you still are left with a game that can stand on it's own merits as a fully functioning system. 3:16's system is so highly abstracted and minimalist, with so few IC choices for actual tactical depth in a game about soldiers in unit-level skirmishes, that the Flashback mechanic is a central, Key Mechanic (and is called so by the designer). At that point, what do you have without it? An abstract skirmish game you could play on a busride.
The tactics in 3:16 are more about how to use Strengths and Weaknesses (a player mechanic) then about how to actually use soldiers battlefield tactics (character mechanic). Thus the key element of the
game, ie. how you interface and use the mechanics, is done as a player, not a character.
It's a very minimalist system created for the purpose of telling stories and roleplaying futuristic soldiers with all the depth of the system invested in a player-facing mechanic.
Venger Definition: Storygame.
Ars Ludi Definition: Possesses Storygame Elements
Krueger Definition: Those Storygame Elements
are the game, it's Raison D'etre. You remove them and it's a completely different game. So what do you call it? That's one of the purposes of this thread I think. What I would not call it is a Roleplaying Game, not without clarifiers.
Note: 3:16 is brilliant design, fully deserving of the Ronnie and other awards it has garnered. However, you know going in, you're going to be roleplayer and storyteller, player and limited GM.
One thing I don't advocate, or want, is a binary definition of Roleplaying Game or Storygame.
The term Storygame I would personally leave for a relatively narrow scope of games, games where the "game" element, the mechanics, are there to facilitate who gets to narrate truth about the collaborative space.
Roleplaying Game I would prefer be used for games without any Storygame Elements. That horse left the barn an Epoch ago, we're kind of stuck with Roleplaying Game being a catch-all phrase for anything even tangentially concerning characters that aren't us, even writing about them.
So what's left is types of games under the ridiculously broad label of Roleplaying Games.
Roleplaying games without OOC elements - You roleplay your character, you do not, from the 3rd person, affect your character. Mechanics are character facing, every invocation of a mechanic is a choice made by the character and executed by the character.
Roleplaying games with OOC elements - You roleplay your character, and can, from the 3rd person, affect your character. The game possesses mechanics that are invoked as a choice by the player and can be executed by the player.
Storygames - That's a tough one, because at what point do you cross the line from "Roleplaying game with OOC elements" to "OOC game with roleplaying elements"? That's why my definition of Storygame would probably be very narrow as mentioned above, and instead we'd be talking about "Narrative Roleplaying Games" or somesuch, but since I don't want to guarantee people attempting to disingenuously obfuscate the discussion, I'll refrain from using the N-word.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910498I'm not quite sure that we're communicating on the same lines. Nathan suggested that storygame rules were necessary to protect players from sucky GMs. On the other hand, if I get what you're saying, yeah it doesn't really follow that if "GM sucking" is a real problem in the designer's eyes that he should assume that players would be any better at handling GM authority/powers.
That is indeed what I was suggesting. You got it.
Quote from: Manzanaro;910496Let's imagine you had shown up for the D&D game with no one planning for the session to be purely in character story telling, but it just happened to go there. Would you feel like you had not played D&D? It may sound like a bit of a stretch, but I (and I'm sure many others) have certainly played sessions in which the actual codified game rules were barely referred to. Yet I still consider those sessions to be examples of playing a roleplaying game, and not simply roleplaying.
I'd say that the reason you or others considered that session to be playing a roleplaying
game rather than just roleplaying or storytelling is because that one session occurred in the wider context of a series of other sessions that weren't just sittin' around the fire telling tales and that did include a degree of
gameyness.
QuoteThis kind of thing is why I feel it is often better to consider individual mechanics rather than to categorize entire games.
I agree that looking at mechanics makes sense. Games are on a spectrum. It's fine to look at individual mechanics, but ultimately you need to be able to say something about the game as a whole. Otherwise there is no meaning to the term storygame nor to the claim that any particular RPG is or is not a storygame. Now if that's the point you want to make, then by all means go ahead and make it.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910498Yeah, but you need to draw the line somewhere.
But I don't think we have to all draw the line in the same place.
What
I would find useful would be a list of the mechanics that are OOC with a brief description or example. Such a list would be a whole lot more useful than one of two stickers one that said THIS IS A STORYGAME and the other that said THIS IS
NOT A STORYGAME.
Quote from: Bren;910539But I don't think we have to all draw the line in the same place.
What I would find useful would be a list of the mechanics that are OOC with a brief description or example. Such a list would be a whole lot more useful than one of two stickers one that said THIS IS A STORYGAME and the other that said THIS IS NOT A STORYGAME.
Heh, if only.
I've found, there are a whole lot of people who grew up being told RPGs were about "telling stories" and too many roleplayers simply said "Eh, close enough." without detailing the difference. As a result, a whole lot of gamers have always "roleplayed" from two places, IC and OOC, have always kept the storytelling aspect in their mind. They're not really capable of discerning the difference, or, more likely, feel threatened by the challenge of the OOC element not being included in what they've always called "roleplay" and so are unwilling to accept that what they've always called "roleplaying" is actually "roleplaying" + "storytelling"...and not everyone means those two things, when they say the one.
Well, I think that while games exist on a spectrum, not all people's tastes do the same. So, for instance, if someone tells me, "I hate story games" or "Don't discuss story games on this page," that person's personal cut-off point for what constitutes a story game is not inherently clear.
On the other hand, if they say, "I hate games in which players have any narrative authority beyond what their character would have," or "I hate games that focus on theme in a mechanically driven way," or "don't talk about Fate or any games by Vince Baker on this page" than they are speaking in a specific manner that I can understand.
So, not so much that I don't think "story games" exist as I think it's a category that is a bit antiquated and resistant to easy and broadly understandable definition.
EDIT: As a side note? I've known PLENTY of D&D GMs who ran their games like one sided story games before the concept even formally existed, and really dislike that particular style of gaming.
Quote from: estar;910482You are trying to argue over the definition of campaigns and what campaigns.
Let's not debate the definition of campaign then. As I said, it’s not the campaign. I disagree with your notion that looking at campaigns is all useful for deciding whether something is or is not a storygame. It looks to me like you are using different words to say essentially the same thing that VS said when he shifted the focus from the game and game rules to the players’ desire.
QuoteStorygamers go towards the story, while the OSR lets the story come to us.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910544As a result, a whole lot of gamers have always "roleplayed" from two places, IC and OOC, have always kept the storytelling aspect in their mind.
Just one of the reasons different people are not all going to draw the line in the same place.
Quote from: Bren;910537It's fine to look at individual mechanics, but ultimately you need to be able to say something about the game as a whole.
Quote from: Bren;910549Just one of the reasons different people are not all going to draw the line in the same place.
It's a lot more than that. For many, that inability or unwillingness to even accept the distinction between IC and OOC means there is no spectrum, because there is no determinant they will accept to determine where on that spectrum something will go. It's one thing to say you and I draw the line in a different place, it's another to say there is no line, it exists only in your head, is based upon whether you like something and has no objective aspect at all, which we've seen already in this very thread, not to mention a hundred times before.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910562It's one thing to say you and I draw the line in a different place, it's another to say there is no line, it exists only in your head, is based upon whether you like something and has no objective aspect at all, which we've seen already in this very thread, not to mention a hundred times before.
I have a friends who likes more of a storytelling style of gaming. She's often perfectly happy to switch from and IC to an OOC perspective during play. But she isn't confused about which mechanics are IC and which are OOC. Frankly, that sort of confusion or if it isn't confusion, that refusal to acknowledge that there is a difference always seems bizarre to me.
I'd say the ability to recognize which is which was necessary for us to be able to run shared worlds.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910526The character does not choose to invoke a flashback. "Crap, I just took a kill that would have moved me from Crippled to Dead, so I decide to invoke a Weakness, and use a Flashback to describe how the history of my character lets me escape certain death." No.
This is not an IC choice by any stretch of the imagination. You are exiting your character, entering a 3rd person authorial stance, declaring the invocation of the Flashback mechanic as a Player, and then entering the character again to narrate the Flashback. But I would also hesitate to call the Flashback itself a roleplaying exercise, it's a narrative exercise. There is no roleplay in a Flashback when you think about it. It's creative storytelling and narrative authority used to create history. Look at the following example:
If I am roleplaying a character sitting in a bar, and an NPC asks me why he should hire me, my PC tells him a story which gives him that reason. I am doing one of the following here:
- Roleplaying my character bullshitting the NPC. I am roleplaying my PC, and my PC is creating a story out of whole cloth. 100% Roleplaying.
- Roleplaying my character telling a story about something my PC actually did in game. I am roleplaying my PC, and my PC is telling a story about his actual history, embellishing or not, but the embellishments are just that. 100% Roleplaying
- Roleplaying my character telling a story about something my PC did not actually do in game, but is assumed to be true because I have the Narrative Authority to declare everything about my PC true. I am roleplaying my PC, and I, as a player, am now generating the history of my character through storytelling. Maybe 50% Roleplaying, if you're being overly generous.
3:16 uses the third option. The player invokes the Flashback to save or help the character, and the player narrates the Flashback, which then becomes true history of the character.
Now if 3:16 were a Space Marine game based on GURPS, with the Flashback mechanic, then you remove the Flashback mechanic and you still are left with a game that can stand on it's own merits as a fully functioning system. 3:16's system is so highly abstracted and minimalist, with so few IC choices for actual tactical depth in a game about soldiers in unit-level skirmishes, that the Flashback mechanic is a central, Key Mechanic (and is called so by the designer). At that point, what do you have without it? An abstract skirmish game you could play on a busride.
The tactics in 3:16 are more about how to use Strengths and Weaknesses (a player mechanic) then about how to actually use soldiers battlefield tactics (character mechanic). Thus the key element of the game, ie. how you interface and use the mechanics, is done as a player, not a character.
It's a very minimalist system created for the purpose of telling stories and roleplaying futuristic soldiers with all the depth of the system invested in a player-facing mechanic.
Venger Definition: Storygame.
Ars Ludi Definition: Possesses Storygame Elements
Krueger Definition: Those Storygame Elements are the game, it's Raison D'etre. You remove them and it's a completely different game. So what do you call it? That's one of the purposes of this thread I think. What I would not call it is a Roleplaying Game, not without clarifiers.
Note: 3:16 is brilliant design, fully deserving of the Ronnie and other awards it has garnered. However, you know going in, you're going to be roleplayer and storyteller, player and limited GM.
Tah-dah! Exactly what I expected you to object. But you see, your objections are founded, but they also show that
the Ars Ludi definition is severely flawed.Your basic - and perfectly valid, although you yourself noted that the "incriminated" mechanic is somehow midway on the spectrum - objection is
QuoteThe character does not choose to invoke a flashback.
Which is completely irrelevant if you use
player abilities as the discriminant. Nowhere in the ars ludi definition is it stated that the character - and not the player - must make the choice of activating the ability. Nowhere in the definition is it stated that the ability must have been agreed beforehand and not inserted in the game at a later time with a player-driven "narrative edit". These are definitiely elements that make 3:16 a "storygame", but the Ars Ludi definition
fails to identify them. On the other hand, as you immediately noted, Venger's definition immediately smells the rat.
The core point is that the discriminant in this case, and in most cases, is "who makes the choice and why", not the mere fact of "who has the ability". I strongly doubt that you can produce a working definition of what is "in character" and "out of character" that does not contain the noun "choice" or the verb "to choose".
CONCLUSION: while we have clearly determined that "3:16" is a "storygame" at its very core, the Ars Ludi definition completely failed to highlight and identify its "storygame" elements. If we want a definition that really discriminates and is based on mechanical, verifiable elements, then another definition is needed.
I have no problem including choice or to choose in the definition, as I said, we're just getting started. However, I'm not sure that there is a difference between choosing to invoke a mechanic and the ability to use the mechanic. If the choice to invoke a flashback is made by the player, then the character does not have the ability to invoke that flashback, therefore the AL definition still fits, and so does the Venger definition, but as you said, goals cannot be measured, mechanics can.
IC/OOC, Associated/Dissociated, Player-Facing/Character-Facing all of these are referring essentially to who is choosing to engage with a mechanic - the character using the mechanic as the character, or the player using the mechanic for or about the character. I think pretty much everyone agrees this is the crux, we just need different syntax.
It sounds like you might have a rewording you're thinking of.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910621all of these are referring essentially to who is choosing to engage with a mechanic
Exactly. "Choosing" is the magic word.
QuoteIt sounds like you might have a rewording you're thinking of.
I have debated the subject for 47 pages on rpg.net in 2013. If you have time to spare - and wish to witness the inevitable shitstorm that any potentially controversial thread elicits there - you can read it here: https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?697377-On-the-existence-of-dissociated-mechanics
However, you will notice that I apply the definition to mechanics, not whole games. And I do not know whether the definition would hold if applied to games. In my opinion, the fact that a game has disassociated/OOC mechanics is not the defining factor for that game. And I say so while knowing perfectly (we acknowledged the fact in that thread) that some players do exist for whom Suspension of Disbelief (call it Immersion if you prefer) is completely dependent on this factor. It is not a problem of non-consideration for those players, the point is the axes are multiple, and this specific one is not the highest in my priority list. Although I suspect it is at the top of *your* list.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;910618The core point is that the discriminant in this case, and in most cases, is "who makes the choice and why", not the mere fact of "who has the ability".
One cannot choose to do what one is unable to do. As you have described it, in 3:16 the character does not have an ability to create flashbacks. The player, in 3:16 does.
(Tangential thought, I wonder, would a character ability to "create flashback" be related to the temporal fugue ability possessed by characters in Zelazny’s novel Creatures of Light and Darkness?)
QuoteNowhere in the definition is it stated that the ability must have been agreed beforehand and not inserted in the game at a later time with a player-driven "narrative edit".
You are focusing on the wrong ability. It is not the ability that the flashback creates that is at issue. It is the ability to create narrative edits that is the ability at issue.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;910627However, you will notice that I apply the definition to mechanics, not whole games.
That is entirely reasonable and appropriate since, on the one hand, games either will or will not have mechanics related to abilities the player is given that the character does not possess. While on the other hand, I doubt that you could have a role-playing game without the presence of some character ability mechanics.
QuoteIn my opinion, the fact that a game has disassociated/OOC mechanics is not the defining factor for that game.
Do games have a single defining factor? That seems unlikely unless the scope of the game is incredibly narrow. I question whether there is a game that includes roleplaying and that is limited to being defined by a single factor. Do you have some examples in mind?
As you describe it, 3:16 includes not just one, but several factors, e.g.
- Fighting and killing aliens.
- Being wounded and killed by aliens.
- A requirement that only one character is allowed to survive a mission. This is a somewhat extreme character survival funnel since only one character is allowed to survive any given mission. Is this requirement in universe or meta-universe and are the characters aware of this mission requirement?
- The use of luck points.
- Narrating flashbacks as a mechanism to add abilities and inabilities during play.
- There may be other factors.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910175In 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.
So, Original D&D is a story game?
I disarmed traps by describing what I did, my character had no "disarm traps" skill.
I led a group of soldiers and deployed them in tactical formations despite having no "tactics" skill or "leadership" skill.
I negotiated based on my own ability to negotiate, bargained based on my own ability to bargain, sought diplomatic solutions based on my own ability to be diplomatic.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910745So, Original D&D is a story game?
I disarmed traps by describing what I did, my character had no "disarm traps" skill.
I led a group of soldiers and deployed them in tactical formations despite having no "tactics" skill or "leadership" skill.
I negotiated based on my own ability to negotiate, bargained based on my own ability to bargain, sought diplomatic solutions based on my own ability to be diplomatic.
Are you saying that the characters that you roleplayed doing these things couldn't do them as if they really existed? That you waved a magic plot bennie and stated "All my troops are lined up in the correct formation because I am just that awesome" That you could have decided instead that that your character could fly and shoot fireballs out his ass?
Quote from: estar;910746Are you saying that the characters that you roleplayed doing these things couldn't do them as if they really existed? That you waved a magic plot bennie and stated "All my troops are lined up in the correct formation because I am just that awesome" That you could have decided instead that that your character could fly and shoot fireballs out his ass?
No, I'm saying that the original definition I quoted is extremely vague.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910745So, Original D&D is a story game?
I disarmed traps by describing what I did, my character had no "disarm traps" skill.
I led a group of soldiers and deployed them in tactical formations despite having no "tactics" skill or "leadership" skill.
I negotiated based on my own ability to negotiate, bargained based on my own ability to bargain, sought diplomatic solutions based on my own ability to be diplomatic.
Come on, there's no need to be obtuse for the hell of it. You know better than anyone that all those things, being something any human can attempt, your character could attempt. Hell, even in games with very restrictive skill systems, your character frequently can do things unskilled, you just have a good chance at fucking it up, like life.
What you didn't do was take a barbarian from the woods, have him pilot a sailing ship in a storm and succeed because you chose to use some metagame point your character has no knowledge of.
Even if the argument is that every single character you ever played was a tactical genius because YOU are a tactical genius, the rules have nothing to say about that one way or the other. That's a GM call to let your farm boy be Rommel. Gary or Phil could have said "This guy has that level of tactical acumen? stop being a jackass."
Edit: Ok, read the second post. As I said, it's just a starting point. I know you're not a big fan of gaming theory for theory's sake, but if you'd like to focus that Jesuit-trained logic over here, we wouldn't mind. :)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910748No, I'm saying that the original definition I quoted is extremely vague.
Seem clear to me. Again all the things you describe make sense if the character you were playing at the time was a real person. However when I spend a Fate Point, play a Whimsy Card, or use any number of similar mechanics am not acting as my character. Unless it is a game like Amber my character isn't going to wave his hand and have a "Unexpected twist of fate"* happen to another character.
*One of the whimsy cards that a player could play.
I can think of several cases where our simulationist old-school Fantasy Trip campaigns did some things that might be done in story games, such as:
* GM lets players invent their PCs' family and background story, and works it into the campaign, sometimes even after the PC had been played for a while and we hadn't thought much about their background yet. However we saw it would be a problem for continuity if they added sudden or great benefits such as "my uncle spoils me and is the fabulously wealthy head of the wizard's guild, and collects cool magic swords which he doesn't mind loaning out to me & my friends" (no one did that, but we did get concerned about anything heading anywhere near that direction).
* GM & players talking out of character about the campaign game world, and discussing the logic of how things are and why and what would be interesting and stuff, possibly leading to the GM changing some stuff about the world.
* GMs collaborating to design a world or adventure together.
* Players changing roles between GM & player, and playing NPCs that are allies or members of the party.
* Players having their PCs do things that will be fun or interesting to play, or to talk about later.
* GMs adding things to the game world, or even to the current story, to make things more fun or funny or interesting. e.g. "Huh, this is a fun battle, but was too easy... time to add a random group that shows up to join the battle!" or "Hmm. The paranoid players are thinking that NPC may be up to some plot. Maybe he or another NPC really is up to a plot like that" or "The player is strip-searching these bodies looking for hidden loot - hmm, maybe I should roll to see if they actually have something hidden that I didn't put on the sheet originally."
But never was the overt goal or reason for things happening to make the story as "cool" or even as interesting as possible. Never was there an explicit player or character ability to take over the roll of making stuff up to exist or happen. Or if there was, we ignored such rules as silly, or at least were clear that the GM could and should veto things that they don't think is a good idea. The closest things we might let pass, in some games, are effects like being blessed or cursed or somehow lucky or unlucky or divine. Not just because there is a player.
Seems to me what makes a story game a story game, is when there is a clear intentional role of players to invent story elements that their PCs aren't doing themselves in-game, as a main part of regular play, for the purpose of "making a good story" or just to play a game where everyone gets part of the creative role traditionally only held by the GM.
Quote from: estar;910791Seem clear to me. Again all the things you describe make sense if the character you were playing at the time was a real person. However when I spend a Fate Point, play a Whimsy Card, or use any number of similar mechanics am not acting as my character.
Bingo!
The point is that while what you said makes perfect sense, the actual definition provided does f** nothing at all to discriminate Fate/Benny/WhimsyCard mechanics from IC mechanics. The fact that using such mechanics "is not in character" remains undiscovered if you apply that specific definition. As Gronan (and yours truly) has tried to point out, while the basic concept is quite easy to grasp, it is absolutely trivial to twist the definition based on "character ability" in a way that it defines even games written by Gygax himself as "storygames".
Or, in other words: the idea does certainly have its merits, but - at the very least - the phrasing stinks.
In the setting, does the character have the knowledge that they have X number of Fate Points and the ability to spend them to thwart Fate by choosing to succeed (or at least not to fail critically)?
If Yes, then using them is IC, if No then using them is OOC. Not Rocket Science here.
But, as Gronan pointed out, Character "Ability" gets fuzzy when we talk about Player Knowledge vs. Character Knowledge in a skill-less game system. So, lets not be fuzzy. At the same time, we really don't need this to be in ironclad academic legalese, do we? I hope not.
Quote from: CRKrueger;910771Come on, there's no need to be obtuse for the hell of it. You know better than anyone that all those things, being something any human can attempt, your character could attempt. Hell, even in games with very restrictive skill systems, your character frequently can do things unskilled, you just have a good chance at fucking it up, like life.
What you didn't do was take a barbarian from the woods, have him pilot a sailing ship in a storm and succeed because you chose to use some metagame point your character has no knowledge of.
Even if the argument is that every single character you ever played was a tactical genius because YOU are a tactical genius, the rules have nothing to say about that one way or the other. That's a GM call to let your farm boy be Rommel. Gary or Phil could have said "This guy has that level of tactical acumen? stop being a jackass."
Edit: Ok, read the second post. As I said, it's just a starting point. I know you're not a big fan of gaming theory for theory's sake, but if you'd like to focus that Jesuit-trained logic over here, we wouldn't mind. :)
Honestly, I wasn't being snarky (I can CERTAINLY understand why you'd think I was :o ). And I probably should have trusted you more not to be grotesquely stupid in your definition, and for that I apologize.
But the original statement really did seem kind of vague... and people have asserted the god-damndest things about gaming (shudder). But you've clarified very well, and I appreciate it.
Long before "story games" was a term, I encountered people talking about gaming choices that "would make a better story."
The problem usually arose when they said "If *YOU* did this it would make a better story." Somietimes this was relatively benign; "if we got ambushed that would make a better story" versus "My character is an experienced guerilla fighter and I'm an experienced wargamer; that is an obvious ambush and there's no way in HELL my character would blunder into it if he's healthy, well rested, and sober." Sometimes it was more greed based.
But there is something else I've observed a LOT more of. Terry Pratchett refers to "narritivium" in his Discworld books; an element in Discworld that essentially "makes stories turn out the way they should." And over the years I have encountered a HUGE number of players who want a "high narrativium" game. And THAT can cause problems.
For instance, in a game a couple years back, (The Fantasy Trip, but system really doesn't matter), we were scouting out a cave system looking for a secret underground entrance into a huge castle full of evil necromancers. The party was one knight, a couple of squires, one apprentice magician, and a couple PC hangers-on.
To cut to the chase, the mission turned into an utter debacle, because when we finally found the entrance, I realized ... DESPITE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CONVERSATIONS BEFOREHAND ... that while I was playing "espionage," half the players fully expected one knight, a squire, one apprentice magician, and a few castle guards to beat twenty strong necromancers, a dozen gargoyles, and a couple of hundred zombies. Because I was playing "recon patrol" and they were playing "Disney princess movie." They expected us to win, because we were the PCs, and the PCs are the protagonists, and therefore we would win.
My definition would be a "Story Game" is a game that gives players a substantial amount of "narrativium". There are games that do that, and I posit that they arose in response to a desire already felt by some players.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910846...
For instance, in a game a couple years back, (The Fantasy Trip, but system really doesn't matter), we were scouting out a cave system looking for a secret underground entrance into a huge castle full of evil necromancers. The party was one knight, a couple of squires, one apprentice magician, and a couple PC hangers-on.
To cut to the chase, the mission turned into an utter debacle, because when we finally found the entrance, I realized ... DESPITE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CONVERSATIONS BEFOREHAND ... that while I was playing "espionage," half the players fully expected one knight, a squire, one apprentice magician, and a few castle guards to beat twenty strong necromancers, a dozen gargoyles, and a couple of hundred zombies. Because I was playing "recon patrol" and they were playing "Disney princess movie." They expected us to win, because we were the PCs, and the PCs are the protagonists, and therefore we would win.
...
Hehe, yeah those are very long odds for an assault, especially in TFT.
Another thing that occurs to me is that there are some "magic change my fate" mechanics in more traditional RPGs, but they tend to be things like a powerful magic Wish, which requires a few tons of high-powered magic, great risk and/or expense, and has a physical existence in the game. IIRC, a Greater Wish in TFT can let you dictate one die roll's outcome, but requires risking a high-level wizard to do a battle of wills with a demon, and therefore an item with such a wish stored in it costs tons and tends to get used for other things anyway. So a StoryGame that makes that level of power just a freebie for being a player, with no explanation in-game-world, that all players just get to do X times per session, seems like a giant power giveaway. Also, and perhaps more importantly in my sensibilities, it undermines the rest of the game situation. If I go to the effort of learning and using detailed rules for a situation, and develop the world and play days of gaming to get to a certain situation that I'm interested in, I for one don't want the situation being set aside for magic wishing that has no reason and sets aside all that carefully-constructed cause & effect that to me was much of the point of playing. I like weird situations and coincidences and fluke chances when they are really determined by things in the situation, or crazy die rolls, but not when it's just throwing out the rules for a bit just because.
I think I'd at least want it to be explicit and have some sort of in-game-world reasoning. Otherwise how do I roleplay a PC who should notice that fluke super-coincidental stuff keeps happening all the time?
I think it's just very clearly a different mode of play, and since I really like games where the cause & effect reliably makes sense, I notice and keenly feel the loss of that when a story or outcome is forced. I can see there is something else to be gained from that mode, and have done it both in a story game (e.g. Microscope) and as GM or in suggesting off-focus events as a player, etc., but to me it's a very distinctly different sort of thing from playing a non-story game situation. So naturally it's annoying if/when you get players trying to play in the same game, but some want story-game stuff and others don't, especially if not all the players understand and agree on what's going on with that. e.g. Clearly one could now find a player who might say part or all of something like "I want a high-risk simulationist sandbox" but really expect something that I'd call a cake-walk hand-held genre-expectation-forcing railroad".
Quote from: Skarg;910956I think I'd at least want it to be explicit and have some sort of in-game-world reasoning. Otherwise how do I roleplay a PC who should notice that fluke super-coincidental stuff keeps happening all the time?
They say, stuff like "Never tell me the odds! (http://25.media.tumblr.com/7936b9ccfdc1fa254978c6892d64714f/tumblr_mkgamm7ddy1qcfjrio2_500.gif)"
It's a start, but by this definition Sorcerer
still isn't a storygame, so it may need some work :)
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.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479Venger is talking about defining people's goals, Krueger is attempting to define games.
If a game helps players to better achieve their goals then it can be said to have that goal.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479I think it needlessly complicates and confuses the issue of: What type of game am I playing or buying?
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479I think it would be much more useful to accurately label the games we play than to try to label the people we play with.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479Player goals (Venger's definition) has to do with what kind of game a group chooses to play. That's important, but it does not describe the game itself (as an RPG, boardgame, miniatures game, collaborative storytelling game or whatever).
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479labeling storygames as such would have saved me time, money, arguments, and broken unhappy game sessions.
You may recall the whole reason The Forge got started in the first place was because Ron Edwards was irritated that Vampire: The Masquerade failed to be what it claimed on the tin. And the whole point of The Forge was to facilitate the design of games which were clear about which player needs they met. The honesty in advertising slant was great, and I've yet to see it equaled anywhere, but what brought it down was assigning values to the agendas. For example...
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479I don't begrudge anybody their fun,
...you might not begrudge them...
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479One of the great things about RPGs from 1974 on is the assumption that players have brains, minds of their own and know how to make the game work for them better than the game designers do.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479Gygax assumed that RPers were intelligent, Dowdell assumes they're not intelligent enough to run a good Conan game without being spoonfed and told what not to do.
...but you've obviously made value judgments about certain styles of play...
Quote from: Madprofessor;910498Nathan suggested that storygame rules were necessary to protect players from sucky GMs.
...and if you want games to be honest about what they are, maybe you should be as well.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479The core difference is that story games demand (or provide - depending on your perspective) OoC player agency, RPGs do not.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910498My primary issue is when a Story Game forces OoC behavior and decisions from players and/or limits GM authority in some way that is baked in to the mechanics.
Quote from: Madprofessor;910479They are for me because my groups and I do not enjoy games that force OoC player decisions. It totally kills the RPG experience for us.
Another thing The Forge proposed was that various player agendas become mutually exclusive at certain points. Your comments show that's demonstratively true, yet the idea is still strongly fought against. But we're not going to be able to honestly label what games really are until we get past that.
Quote from: Bren;910371Lately, 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?"
I've come to the conclusion that there's an important distinction between Action and Intent that isn't being addressed, and most RPGs still treat them as one and the same. Your above example demonstrates why that might not be the best idea.
Quote from: VengerSatanis;910481Although, how should we account for a player's skill being an important factor in his character's chances to do A, B, or C?
Great question. But
which player skill? Tactical thinking? Reading people? Negotiation? Something else?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910846But there is something else I've observed a LOT more of. Terry Pratchett refers to "narritivium" in his Discworld books; an element in Discworld that essentially "makes stories turn out the way they should." And over the years I have encountered a HUGE number of players who want a "high narrativium" game. And THAT can cause problems.
For instance, in a game a couple years back, (The Fantasy Trip, but system really doesn't matter), we were scouting out a cave system looking for a secret underground entrance into a huge castle full of evil necromancers. The party was one knight, a couple of squires, one apprentice magician, and a couple PC hangers-on.
To cut to the chase, the mission turned into an utter debacle, because when we finally found the entrance, I realized ... DESPITE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CONVERSATIONS BEFOREHAND ... that while I was playing "espionage," half the players fully expected one knight, a squire, one apprentice magician, and a few castle guards to beat twenty strong necromancers, a dozen gargoyles, and a couple of hundred zombies. Because I was playing "recon patrol" and they were playing "Disney princess movie." They expected us to win, because we were the PCs, and the PCs are the protagonists, and therefore we would win.
I'm beginning to think that establishing expectations through discussion really doesn't work. But
why?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911169If a game helps players to better achieve their goals then it can be said to have that goal.
One can say that. It's still wrong though. Games can't have goals. GMs can. Players can. Designers can. Games cannot.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911169I've come to the conclusion that there's an important distinction between Action and Intent that isn't being addressed, and most RPGs still treat them as one and the same. Your above example demonstrates why that might not be the best idea.
It is trivially obvious that action and intent are two different things. Sometimes an action furthers intent. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes intent is clear from action. Other times it's not. Hence my preference for statements that clarify intent.
You're going to have to type something a bit more elaborate than a one or two sentence sound bite it you want anyone to understand what the heck you are trying to say (or maybe trying not to say) about the distinction between the two and why you think some games (story games possibly?) treat them as the same thing.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911169I'm beginning to think that establishing expectations through discussion really doesn't work. But why?
If your definition of "work" is perfect understanding, you'd be correct. But that's a useless definition.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911169It's a start, but by this definition Sorcerer still isn't a storygame, so it may need some work :)
I don't own it so I can't help you there.
QuoteIf a game helps players to better achieve their goals then it can be said to have that goal.
What Bren said.
QuoteYou may recall the whole reason The Forge got started in the first place was because Ron Edwards was irritated that Vampire: The Masquerade failed to be what it claimed on the tin. And the whole point of The Forge was to facilitate the design of games which were clear about which player needs they met.
I don't recall. I only know enough about the Forge to stick my foot in my mouth, that and whenever a subject like this comes up I know someone will come along and tell me it is the only true way of thinking.
QuoteThe honesty in advertising slant was great, and I've yet to see it equaled anywhere, but what brought it down was assigning values to the agendas.
Unclear.
QuoteFor example...
...you might not begrudge them...
...but you've obviously made value judgments about certain styles of play...
I didn't pass any value judgements. I made an observation. Gygax assumed players and GMs were smart, Modiphius designed their game under the assumption that people were stupid and needed rules fix their stupidity. They told me so.
Here's a value judgement for that design philosophy: "Rules can't cure stupid" - Gronan.
Quote...and if you want games to be honest about what they are, maybe you should be as well.
I may be many things, and may even be wrong from time to time. I am not afraid to own it, but I am most certainly Not dishonest. Please don't get personal. It makes the whole process unpleasant. You have no grounds for such a statement.
QuoteAnother thing The Forge proposed was that various player agendas become mutually exclusive at certain points. Your comments show that's demonstratively true, yet the idea is still strongly fought against. But we're not going to be able to honestly label what games really are until we get past that.
Players' agendas have no bearing on the definition in question. That's why I think it works where others don't. People keep interjecting "but what about my goals?" The mechanics don't care.
QuoteI've come to the conclusion that there's an important distinction between Action and Intent that isn't being addressed, and most RPGs still treat them as one and the same. Your above example demonstrates why that might not be the best idea.
What Bren said.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910846Long before "story games" was a term, I encountered people talking about gaming choices that "would make a better story."
Yes, it has been a part of the conversation from the beginning for me too. And I admit, I like a good story. But I have had plenty of good stories come out of traditional RPGs, and I am sure you have as well.
QuoteTo cut to the chase, the mission turned into an utter debacle, because when we finally found the entrance, I realized ... DESPITE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CONVERSATIONS BEFOREHAND ... that while I was playing "espionage," half the players fully expected one knight, a squire, one apprentice magician, and a few castle guards to beat twenty strong necromancers, a dozen gargoyles, and a couple of hundred zombies. Because I was playing "recon patrol" and they were playing "Disney princess movie." They expected us to win, because we were the PCs, and the PCs are the protagonists, and therefore we would win.
I have players infected with "Disney Princess Movie" syndrome as well. It's a bit annoying because it causes my desire to entertain to conflict with my desire to be impartial as a GM. Funny thing though, my Disney Princesses don't like OoC mechanics, or games that ask them to make decisions their characters couldn't make. It's not like they want narrative control. They're more like... spectators? I'm not sure if that's exactly it either.
QuoteMy definition would be a "Story Game" is a game that gives players a substantial amount of "narrativium". There are games that do that, and I posit that they arose in response to a desire already felt by some players.
So how do games give narrativium to players? I think your definition parallels that of the OP. It seems to me that the only way a game can do this is through rules, systems, and mechanics (what else do games have other than pieces?). Crueger's definition goes a step further and explains exactly when rules give narrativium, doesn't it (I ask the universe)?
The trouble is, a few rules here and there that give players narrativium are not necessarily enough to define the whole game as a story game. So the question becomes, how much of these rules are necessary for the game to cease being an RPG and start being a storygame? I think it's simple (but I have been known to miss things). When a game
forces players to take narrative control, and the game cannot be played otherwise (without changing the rules) then it is a story game.
Seems clear as day to me, but I am sure it just pisses some people off.
Quote from: Madprofessor;911283I have players infected with "Disney Princess Movie" syndrome as well. It's a bit annoying because it causes my desire to entertain to conflict with my desire to be impartial as a GM. Funny thing though, my Disney Princesses don't like OoC mechanics, or games that ask them to make decisions their characters couldn't make. It's not like they want narrative control. They're more like... spectators? I'm not sure if that's exactly it either.
Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?
That may sound more pejorative then I intend it to mean. So let me explain what I mean.
Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured (or, in the case of something like Game of Thrones, that they are highly unlikely to be killed in any given episode, especially if the episode is in the middle of a season) any more than they are going to marry the romantic interest of the week and live happily (or unhappily) with them for the rest of [strike]their lives[/strike] the series. RPG campaigns, because they have the continuation and repetition of a TV series, may seem like they should follow the tropes of a TV series which may incline some players to want the same sort of outcome for their PCs as they see for action heroes in a franchise or series regulars on a TV show.
QuoteSo how do games give narrativium to players?
I am reminded of our old Star Trek campaign. We intentionally imitated a lot of the tropes of the TV series (predominantly TOS and TNG since our setting was in the decades between the two series). As an example, I remember one conversation we had before an away team beamed over to a derelict space ship. The ship had residual power providing heat, light, and a breatheable atmosphere. So the question came up as to whether the team should take the logical, reasonable, safe approach of wearing full environmental suits, maintaining constant contact via their communicators, and the transporter room on the main ship keeping a transporter lock on them at all times or whether they should, like the characters on the TV shows, beam over in their ordinary uniforms with simple hand phasers and at most check in at periodic intervals?
Now I'd say that if the expectation is that the PCs are not going to be killed or permanently injured (just like the main characters on the various series) then following the series tropes is reasonably safe and is more likely to result in a session that is like the TV shows. But if the expectation is that space is cold, and the universe is an uncaring place, then a different approach is going to be the reasonable approach to take.
Quote from: Bren;911285Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?
That may sound more pejorative then I intend it to mean. So let me explain what I mean.
Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured (or, in the case of something like Game of Thrones, that they are highly unlikely to be killed in any given episode, especially if the episode is in the middle of a season) any more than they are going to marry the romantic interest of the week and live happily (or unhappily) with them for the rest of [strike]their lives[/strike] the series. RPG campaigns, because they have the continuation and repetition of a TV series, may seem like they should follow the tropes of a TV series which may incline some players to want the same sort of outcome for their PCs as they see for action heroes in a franchise or series regulars on a TV show.
I am reminded of our old Star Trek campaign. We intentionally imitated a lot of the tropes of the TV series (predominantly TOS and TNG since our setting was in the decades between the two series). As an example, I remember one conversation we had before an away team beamed over to a derelict space ship. The ship had residual power providing heat, light, and a breatheable atmosphere. So the question came up as to whether the team should take the logical, reasonable, safe approach of wearing full environmental suits, maintaining constant contact via their communicators, and the transporter room on the main ship keeping a transporter lock on them at all times or whether they should, like the characters on the TV shows, beam over in their ordinary uniforms with simple hand phasers and at most check in at periodic intervals?
Now I'd say that if the expectation is that the PCs are not going to be killed or permanently injured (just like the main characters on the various series) then following the series tropes is reasonably safe and is more likely to result in a session that is like the TV shows. But if the expectation is that space is cold, and the universe is an uncaring place, then a different approach is going to be the reasonable approach to take.
This is an excellent post. We played a great Star Trek TOS game that lasted about a year, and it was a very "high narrativium" game. However, we sat down and talked about it. (Contrary to what some may bray, talking about stuff actually works.) The referee said that we wouldn't be penalized for doing what they did on TV rather than what made objective sense, so I as Captain stopped worrying about it and simply used to say "Player characters to the Transporter Room".
TOS is a great example. We KNEW Captain Kirk wasn't gonna die, and the Enterprise wasn't going to be destroyed, but all we eager TV viewers agreed to pretend we didn't know that.
It can work great, just as long as everyone is on the same page. I wouldn't want Star Trek RPGing to be any different, but I want my D&D to be a little closer to its wargaming roots. Non disputatus de gustibus, YMMV, and all that.
So genres have tropes and RPGs about those genres should utilize and respect the tropes of that genre?
Yes. I agree water is still wet.
Quote from: Spinachcat;911307So genres have tropes and RPGs about those genres should utilize and respect the tropes of that genre?
Yes. I agree water is still wet.
But how? If the Captain wants to beam down to every planet regardless of the amount of information and danger there might be, do we have a rule that anyone with Rank: Captain on the sheet cannot be killed? Do we have some Tenra Bansho Zero "I allow you to kill me box?" There's a difference between mechanics that FORCE GENRE and conventions that could be followed. Here's where Brady's "Gentleman's Agreement" actually does exist and has been used in games of all types since the start of the hobby. The thing is, there's no defense against a GM who wants to break that agreement, hence the entire point of narrative control mechanics in the first place - forcing GM's to accept convention through mechanics.
Narrativium is a good term, but it focuses on only one type of OOC mechanic. An AEDU structure for combat maneuvers is definitely dissociated for certain things, combat maneuvers that trip slimes, etc. are OOC mechanics in that they allow the player to make choices the character cannot make, but doesn't have anything to do with Narrativium or Storygaming, the choice is one that gives tactical depth, supporting the Game aspect, not a third person author aspect.
Some kind of basic breakdown (these are not official suggestions of definitions, just broad categories at this point)
1. Roleplaying Games that do not include OOC mechanics
2. Roleplaying Games that do contain OOC mechanics
2a. OOC mechanics based on reinforcing genre
2b. OOC mechanics based on granting narrative control to give players storytelling power.
2c. OOC mechanics based on providing tactical depth to the game
3. Collaborative Storytelling games (containing roleplaying) that include mechanics to govern who gets to tell the story.
Now obviously 1 is pretty straightforward.
2 of course is what powers all the Sturm und Drang on forums. For some people, a game like Pendragon, obviously a 2a, doesn't feel really any different to them then a 1 game. There's a lot of people who always have and always "roleplay" in third person authorial stance and not even know that's what they're doing. Suggest that technically they may not be solely roleplaying and...well...shit gets real.
The thing is, these definitions can be objective. We talk about a spectrum and a slide as if the whole thing is subjective, but the definitions above are NOT subjective. They are fact.
What
is subjective is whether or not such OOC mechanics disrupt immersion into an IC-POV...for you (or if you even enter IC-POV at all).
The fact that a game contains OOC mechanics that you cannot engage with from a IC-POV is not subjective. That you personally consider it "close enough" and can mentally paper it over doesn't mean there's nothing there, it means you're mentally papering it over.
Rant Spoiler:
Spoiler
[RANT]The problem is, who has ever said on a forum "Yeah, I'm roleplaying as well as storytelling, so what?" No one on this forum, that's for sure. You'll see it on purple, you'll see it on storygames.com or anyplace else, but over here it's usually something like Narrative??!WTFWHARGARGBLE!1! Too many people are more intellectually invested in denying Pundit any form of satisfaction then they are honestly discussing something.[/RANT]
So any kind of a definition that claims that "Storygame" is when we hit my personal subjective tipping point for OOC mechanics isn't going to work. We have to come up with something concrete. If you think that this is a fools errand and it can't done, ok, please go fuck off elsewhere and leave us to our mental masturbatory theory circle jerk. :D
Rosen and Anon are correct in that assumptions of the game designer are important. Now obviously a game can't have an agenda, or a goal, but a game can be designed specifically to support a goal, to the point where it can actually not be as useful to people without that goal. Most cars can carry a little, haul a little, do some very simple offroad, and do well on streets or freeway, and you could drive it on a racetrack. Obviously if you care heavily about one of those things, and not others, you get a car that specializes. We have general tools and specific tools. This applies to everything, including language, itself a tool. You have normal vocabulary and jargon.
If there is a game that assumes you are going to want the type of player control that allows the enforcement of genre and grants narrative authority to players, and designs for that purpose, well then that system is pretty much 100% useless to people who do not want that capability. System Matters was pretty much the rallying cry of the Forge (which is why I always found it repugnant that so many storygame advocates argued here that {insert game} wasn't some game specifically designed for a specific purpose).
So please, let's not do an Encyclopedia Rainman Brown and simply accept that if a designer specifically designs a game to support players with that goal, then "the game supports that goal" is decent enough shorthand. We all know a tool can't think (at least not yet). That being said, I think a definition does need to focus on the game, not the player. The reason is, players play different types of games. I liked 2d20 for what it was, I did not like it as my standard RPG, because it is not a standard roleplaying game despite what some would claim.
So "Storygames are games for people who chase story" isn't going to work for me. It teases at the core of the issue, namely the player is looking for an experience to create and be in a story, not immerse into a character (or ONLY immerse into a character) but doesn't tell the whole story (pun intended, smack me later), and in the end, the way is game is going to meet that player's goals is through mechanical reinforcement, so we're going to end up having to go back to the game mechanics anyway to determine the form that mechanical inforcement takes. It's probably easier to start there.
Quote from: Bren;911285Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?
That may sound more pejorative then I intend it to mean. So let me explain what I mean.
Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured (or, in the case of something like Game of Thrones, that they are highly unlikely to be killed in any given episode, especially if the episode is in the middle of a season) any more than they are going to marry the romantic interest of the week and live happily (or unhappily) with them for the rest of [strike]their lives[/strike] the series. RPG campaigns, because they have the continuation and repetition of a TV series, may seem like they should follow the tropes of a TV series which may incline some players to want the same sort of outcome for their PCs as they see for action heroes in a franchise or series regulars on a TV show.
Yes, I think that is pretty much it. They want an action story where they get to be the protagonist and have everything come out as it "should." They want to participate in the story, but they don't want to create it, and they don't want it to turn out wrong either. They have the expectation that they will struggle mightily, maybe even have setbacks, but come out on top - like they're watching TV but determining the moves of their characters.
Now, not all of my players are like this (I have several groups and a wide range of players). Thinking about it, most of these Disney Princesses (except 1 who is a new player) grew up on 3.5, so challenge rating mentality might be the culprit, but I see other players, even old timers like me with war-gaming roots buying into the mentality too so I think it is deeper. As you say, it may be the result of media bombardment. In any case, I certainly think a GM who is looking for a game that has some contrary assumptions to mass media formula has his work cut out for him explaining his expectations.
Slightly off topic but related to the thread, I don't think these players are some kind of latent, oppressed story gamers just because they want their game to result in a story. I don't think story games don't have a monopoly on story. Nobody here in this thread is saying they do, and I am not accusing anyone, but we have had contentious threads discussing how (or if) traditional RPGs produce story (or narrative), and I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't come in and say "your game has a story, therefore it is a story game." I'd like to nip that idea in the bud.
As for Star Trek, I think specific genre tropes are another question.
Quote from: Madprofessor;911450Yes, I think that is pretty much it. They want an action story where they get to be the protagonist and have everything come out as it "should." They want to participate in the story, but they don't want to create it, and they don't want it to turn out wrong either. They have the expectation that they will struggle mightily, maybe even have setbacks, but come out on top - like they're watching TV but determining the moves of their characters.
Yeah that is a preference I've seen. Pretty much the way we played Star Trek. I don't have time to respond more now as I need to catch 2-3 hours sleep before I go to the airport. I'll write more later, but it may be a few days as I am traveling.
QuoteI'd like to nip that idea in the bud.
Fine by me.
I will note though, that in a somewhat recent "contentious thread" I caught a lot of shit for suggesting that some players wanted their characters to have "plot immunity" to death. Funny to see some of the people who most fervently attacked this idea now supporting it.
But supporting it by a "gentleman's agreement" doesn't seem like a best case scenario to me, especially if it is an unspoken agreement which only one party assumes to exist. I can't stand when a GM is constantly fudging and bailing the PCs out behind the scenes, while refusing to acknowledge it is going on.
Quote from: Manzanaro;911488I will note though, that in a somewhat recent "contentious thread" I caught a lot of shit for suggesting that some players wanted their characters to have "plot immunity" to death. Funny to see some of the people who most fervently attacked this idea now supporting it.
But supporting it by a "gentleman's agreement" doesn't seem like a best case scenario to me, especially if it is an unspoken agreement which only one party assumes to exist. I can't stand when a GM is constantly fudging and bailing the PCs out behind the scenes, while refusing to acknowledge it is going on.
Identifying something isn't necessarily supporting it. I think you're pointing to other posters, but for me, I think the idea that a Starfleet Captain can't die is simply asinine. But then again, I don't generally like playing with a 4th wall breaking adherence to genre, I was just pointing out that...
1. A Star Trek game mechanically enforcing genre through OOC mechanics.
2. A Star Trek game without any OOC mechanical enforcement of genre, where the genre conventions are enforced by players and GM.
...are not the same game, at all.
2 allows for flexibility in approach, 1 does not, thus 1 is worthless to someone who wants to play from an IC-PoV. They want to play Captain Kirk, not Captain Kirk, William Shatner and Gene Roddenberry all at the same time.
Hmm. Well here is a question. If the GM is expressly noted by the rules to be able to do or declare anything and to always be right, does that count as mechanical enforcement?
No. Expendable drama points that you can spend to narrate an outcome other than death is mechanical enforcement. A box that you must check to declare your character killable is mechanical enforcement. GM Fiat is not a mechanic.
D&D always allowed different types of play, but if you had a bunch of people who were all about creating a story while they were playing (and no, not everyone does that) it was up to the GM to work with them to make that happen, or not. Otherwise is was just a player making decisions trying to create a story about their character, while everyone else was doing something different.
For example, the so-called Storyteller System had Humanity, but compared to something like Pendragon, there was hardly any mechanical hooks into the character that could be invoked OOC by the Player or by the GM to move the character in different story directions.
The Storyteller System wasn't a system about telling stories, it was a system that let you roleplay a vampire. Mr. Edwards felt betrayed and the rest is history.
Well, I feel like "a player may affect the game world by declaring that something happens" is actually THE fundamental mechanic of RPGs, but perhaps so fundamental that it stops registering as a mechanic.
But your further comments make me think about a definition I was thinking about earlier which is "a story game is a game whose rules are not about what happens, but about who has the authority to SAY what happens". But that's still not entirely clear cut.
Quote from: CRKrueger;911311But how? If the Captain wants to beam down to every planet regardless of the amount of information and danger there might be, do we have a rule that anyone with Rank: Captain on the sheet cannot be killed? Do we have some Tenra Bansho Zero "I allow you to kill me box?" There's a difference between mechanics that FORCE GENRE and conventions that could be followed. Here's where Brady's "Gentleman's Agreement" actually does exist and has been used in games of all types since the start of the hobby. The thing is, there's no defense against a GM who wants to break that agreement, hence the entire point of narrative control mechanics in the first place - forcing GM's to accept convention through mechanics.
We're back to "talk about things." In my exalted opinion rather than rules forcing a GM to accept convention, negotiation is superior. If opinions are too different, don't play together.
Quote from: CRKrueger;911492Identifying something isn't necessarily supporting it. I think you're pointing to other posters, but for me, I think the idea that a Starfleet Captain can't die is simply asinine.
Maybe. But I will buy "Starfleet Captains shouldn't die every session for behaving like they did on the TV show if that's what we've all agreed we're playing."
Quote from: jhkim;910459There are also games considered story games that don't have out-of-character mechanics. Rosen McStern brought up 3:16 - Carnage Among the Stars. I think a stronger case is a game like "The Mothers" where you play mothers struggling with post-partum depression. Everything you do is in-character - you're just talking about your problems, and what's been happening with your body, and so forth. However, I think most people would characterize it more as a story game than a role-playing game. Likewise with "Sign", where you play deaf children in Nicaragua learning to communicate.
That sounds more like emotional masturbation than a
game.
Quote from: Spinachcat;911307So genres have tropes and RPGs about those genres should utilize and respect the tropes of that genre?
Yes. I agree water is still wet.
Damn you and your common sense! :)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911540Maybe. But I will buy "Starfleet Captains shouldn't die every session for behaving like they did on the TV show if that's what we've all agreed we're playing."
So why bother playing if there is no consequence?
Quote from: Manzanaro;911537But your further comments make me think about a definition I was thinking about earlier which is "a story game is a game whose rules are not about what happens, but about who has the authority to SAY what happens". But that's still not entirely clear cut.
I think this definition is leaning in the direction we're headed in. But, I think what we are doing here is taking it a step further to ask how we can be more concrete and specific about
how a game assigns authority or authorship to players about actions or events that would be beyond the control of their character in the imaginary space (that's probably not perfectly worded). By identifying player OoC mechanics and how they are used, the idea is that we can remove some subjective variables, like particular group dynamics or individual player goals, from the equation and focus on defining the game itself with a greater degree of objectivity.
QuoteI will note though, that in a somewhat recent "contentious thread" I caught a lot of shit for suggesting that some players wanted their characters to have "plot immunity" to death. Funny to see some of the people who most fervently attacked this idea now supporting it.
I don't think I am one of the people you are referring to here as I tried to stay out of that thread and I don't remember giving you any shit.
Anyway, I think the "Disney Princess" discussion is tangential to the main topic. I was merely identifying some of my players' assumed protagonist privileges asking where those ideas came from in response to Gronan's suggestion that story-motivated players have been around since the beginning. I am not "supporting the idea," and I thought I was clear that, for me at least, these motivations drive a bit of wedge between my desire to be an impartial referee, and my desire to entertain and consider my players' want's (even when they're being bitchy and inane). In any case, the whole conversation is a digression from defining story games.
QuoteBut supporting it by a "gentleman's agreement" doesn't seem like a best case scenario to me, especially if it is an unspoken agreement which only one party assumes to exist. I can't stand when a GM is constantly fudging and bailing the PCs out behind the scenes, while refusing to acknowledge it is going on.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable complaint and set of preferences.
Quote from: Manzanaro;911537Well, I feel like "a player may affect the game world by declaring that something happens" is actually THE fundamental mechanic of RPGs, but perhaps so fundamental that it stops registering as a mechanic.
I think that's too broad to cover a distinction between story-games and non-story-game RPGs.
In a story-game, yes. Players can not only say what their PC does (if they even have a PC - e.g. Microscope where even during RP segments, everyone's still sort of a GM), the rules also say players can make other narrative statements which depending on the game can either be practically anything, or certain types of things, but those things go beyond what their PC does.
In a non-story-game RPG, no. GMs are the ones who say what happens. PCs only say what their PCs attempt to do. The GM corrects them if their idea doesn't succeed, whether it's because something stops the PC, the PC fails, or the player's idea is ruled invalid for the PC. Even if the PC rolls his needed success roll to do something and declares "I hit the orc", the GM may have some state or mechanic the player doesn't know about, and say no actually that didn't happen. A player can only provide input for allowed actions of their PC, and out-of-character jabber that has no effect on play.
There are some in-between mechanics, of course. So I'd say there's a grey area for games that are mostly non-story but have a few mechanics (e.g. a character is officially Lucky and can re-roll one die roll involving their character per 2 hours of play). I'd tend to call that an OOC player mechanic that gives a specific limited GM ability to the player. Traditional RPGs do have some of these, mainly for convenience or when the designers didn't have an elegant way to keep things in-character, or thought it would be more fun and wouldn't be too out-of-place to let players have some OOC options: I mean things such as deciding which of their wounds heals first, or what ability they gain from experience.
That is, I think technically from an RPG perspective, story-game mechanics are OOC player actions. The "story" part, to me, is about the intention/orientation "to create a story", which is a separate thing.
So I'd say you could have a story-oriented GM, who is running the game around ideas he has about wanting to make a story he likes, but is still limiting players to in-character actions, and perhaps considering their suggestions for his GMing. I wouldn't call that a story-game. I'd call it a story-oriented GM playing an RPG.
I think the parts about genre expectations and whether or not anything keeps PCs from getting killed when logically they would, are two separate issues - those seem like motivations that are sometimes not explicit and lead to various choices in game design and GMing, but aren't really about what a story game is or isn't. Either type of game can have merciless death or genre adherence/violation, without affecting whether it's a story game or not. I wonder if anyone's ever made a mercilessly deadly story-game? I think the answer is probably "no" or "rarely" or "there's one but it's really unpopular", but I don't think that's a matter of game taxonomy.
Quote from: jeff37923;911573That sounds more like emotional masturbation than a game.
Yeah, wtf dude.
Quote from: jhkim;910459There are also games considered story games that don't have out-of-character mechanics. Rosen McStern brought up 3:16 - Carnage Among the Stars. I think a stronger case is a game like "The Mothers" where you play mothers struggling with post-partum depression. Everything you do is in-character - you're just talking about your problems, and what's been happening with your body, and so forth. However, I think most people would characterize it more as a story game than a role-playing game. Likewise with "Sign", where you play deaf children in Nicaragua learning to communicate.
Is sign a real game? It seems strangely specific.
Quote from: Skarg;911601I wonder if anyone's ever made a mercilessly deadly story-game? I think the answer is probably "no" or "rarely" or "there's one but it's really unpopular", but I don't think that's a matter of game taxonomy.
Fiasco is quite mercilessly deadly if you are playing it "right". So is Dread. Those are the 2 big ones that spring to mind, but there are others as well.
Part of it is that a lot of story games are one shots and can afford to be lethal without long term ramifications.
(And who in their right mind would play "Signs" or the post partum depression game more than once?!)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;911615Is sign a real game? It seems strangely specific.
They seem more like actual role playing exercises than anything I'd want to play for fun, yeah.
Deaf Children in Nicaragua? Mothers with Post Partum Depression?
Okay, so there's a story game where you get to play Skeletons in a Dungeon... ones that have been there for centuries undisturbed, guarding, who begin to slowly wake up.. I can get behind that kind of story game, could be fun for a one shot... But Deaf Children in Nicaragua and Mothers with post Partum Depression?
I'm starting to think most hardcore Storygames are only good for One shots...
Quote from: Orphan81;911676I'm starting to think most hardcore Storygames are only good for One shots...
Many seem written to do a pretty specific thing. In extreme cases, like The Mountain Witch, they are written to do a single scenario. Mots of he ones I have are written to do specific genre or subgenre and encourage or enforce the tropes associated with that subject matter.
I would say that a storygame is one that is written to tell a specific story or a specific sort of story with mechanics to enforce the story's tropes and conventions. Dread is all about emulating horror movies and the rules support and enforce that throughout from the way that stats are paired to the available actions to the tension mechanic which controls mood and pacing. It's all about making the game flow like a horror movie. You can adjust the mechanics to tell a specific sort of horror movie story from a specific subgenre but it's all about making the game emulate a specific sort of story.
Quote from: Bren;911226One can say that. It's still wrong though. Games can't have goals. GMs can. Players can. Designers can. Games cannot.
OK then, designed for a
purpose. That's the whole point of design. And a system designed to facilitate certain goals can make achieving other goals more difficult.
Quote from: Bren;911226It is trivially obvious that action and intent are two different things. Sometimes an action furthers intent. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes intent is clear from action. Other times it's not. Hence my preference for statements that clarify intent.
And yet
traditional RPGs treat them as one and the same. Your skill equals your action not intent, and succeeding in your action implies succeeding in your intent (unless the GM is being a dick). And what if you have multiple intentions per action? How can you achieve one but fail the other? What makes one intention separate from another in the first place?
Quote from: Bren;911226You're going to have to type something a bit more elaborate than a one or two sentence sound bite it you want anyone to understand what the heck you are trying to say (or maybe trying not to say) about the distinction between the two and why you think some games (story games possibly?) treat them as the same thing.
Beyond the above, I've got a whole RPG based on that premise which does a better job of demonstrating the issue than I can here and now.
Quote from: Bren;911226If your definition of "work" is perfect understanding, you'd be correct. But that's a useless definition.
The whole point of discussion is
because understanding is imperfect, but that doesn't mean communication can't be improved by knowing where and why it fails.
Quote from: Madprofessor;911270I don't own it so I can't help you there.
It's an inside joke and one I'm very happy seeing people not get. Means we're moving past the bullshit.
Quote from: Madprofessor;911270Modiphius designed their game under the assumption that people were stupid and needed rules fix their stupidity. They told me so.
I highly doubt that, but if you show me a link I'm more than happy to concede.
Quote from: Madprofessor;911270Here's a value judgement for that design philosophy: "Rules can't cure stupid" - Gronan.
Nothing can.
But they can
reveal it.
Quote from: Madprofessor;911270Players' agendas have no bearing on the definition in question. That's why I think it works where others don't. People keep interjecting "but what about my goals?" The mechanics don't care.
And yet the mechanics in 2d20 made pursuing
your agenda all but impossible.
Mechanics may not 'care', but they can facilitate or undermine the pursuit of specific goals. And it's far easier to market a game based on agendas than with wordy statements about design and purpose.
Quote from: Bren;911285Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?
People love the gamble but hate the loss.
Quote from: Bren;911285Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured
It goes further: Most popular media is designed to be
predictable, even when it comes to people dying (like in Murder She Wrote).
Quote from: Madprofessor;911450In any case, I certainly think a GM who is looking for a game that has some contrary assumptions to mass media formula has his work cut out for him explaining his expectations.
Agreed, which is why licensing is so successful for play (if not profit).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911538We're back to "talk about things." In my exalted opinion rather than rules forcing a GM to accept convention, negotiation is superior. If opinions are too different, don't play together.
I know you feel that being 'adults' should suffice for clear communication, and I kinda wish it was, but it isn't and we still have a long way to go when it comes to communicating what we expect out of RPGs.
I played World of Dew / Sound of Water at Gen Con.
Whilst I think these distinctions are ridiculous (at most there is a spectrum), highly divisive, and not even that helpful, if you must have the moniker "Storygames" I would think that this game product would fit.
We had pre-generated PCs, the GM had a plot structure and key NPCs established in advance.
The game required (and aided) us to develop strong narrative IC links between all the characters. We also developed the town and other NPCs, both at start-up and during the game.
We could affect the direction of the game and the plot both narratively and mechanically. The referee could mess around (or reward) us in the same way.
In most standard games that wouldn't happen, the world and everything in it would be controlled by the DM, mostly prepped in advance.
I love them both, variety is the spice of life etc.
Quote from: CRKrueger;911318So "Storygames are games for people who chase story" isn't going to work for me. It teases at the core of the issue, namely the player is looking for an experience to create and be in a story, not immerse into a character (or ONLY immerse into a character) but doesn't tell the whole story (pun intended, smack me later), and in the end, the way is game is going to meet that player's goals is through mechanical reinforcement, so we're going to end up having to go back to the game mechanics anyway to determine the form that mechanical inforcement takes. It's probably easier to start there.
The problem is that... not all Storygames actually enforce this through what you would call
mechanics. Some games, nominally the simplest ones, do it through color, or other non-rules-related or even non-procedure-related means. Example: Amidst Endless Quiet. And I have seen several other minigames do something similar. They do not have mechanics that can be categorised as "enforcing this or that", yet they do produce a predictable game experience. This is why I am dubious on the necessity of categorizing on mechanics: some games "do it differently", yet succeed. The only real discriminant is a) group intention when playing and b) being confident that the game will produce something that addresses said intention. The ways in which various games obtain b) are too varied to really find a "common" mechanistic that identifies a StoryGame as such. Fate/bennies are certainly not the most characteristic one.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911735OK then, designed for a purpose. That's the whole point of design. And a system designed to facilitate certain goals can make achieving other goals more difficult.
It might. It might not. We’d need to be discussing specific goals and systems to know whether might or might not applied.
QuoteAnd yet traditional RPGs treat them as one and the same. Your skill equals your action not intent, and succeeding in your action implies succeeding in your intent (unless the GM is being a dick). And what if you have multiple intentions per action? How can you achieve one but fail the other? What makes one intention separate from another in the first place?
Again, no.
Your skill (actually your PC’s skill) is your ability to succeed at some specific action (situational modifiers frequently adjust the chance for success and actions may be opposed so your success or failure may be affected by an opponent's roll). Succeeding in your action only implies succeeding in your intent in certain circumstances* and after adjustment for situational modifiers and opposing rolls. Players understand that action and intent aren’t the same thing (unless, that is, the players are clueless or childish whiners**).
QuoteBeyond the above, I've got a whole RPG based on that premise which does a better job of demonstrating the issue than I can here and now.
That may be, but it doesn’t advance our discussion here now does it?
QuoteThe whole point of discussion is because understanding is imperfect, but that doesn't mean communication can't be improved by knowing where and why it fails.
Knowing is also imperfect. I doubt you will know exactly where and why communication fails. Usually one is doing well to just be aware that communication has failed. And it isn’t all that important to know exactly when and where and why communication failed. All that matters is recognizing a failure occurred and then finding some means for better and more clear communication.
* To be specific, only when the intent and the action are very closely aligned and there are no situational factors that prevent the intent from being achieved.
** You know, the flip side to dickish GMs.
Clearly, the story games crowd does not seem to believe there is a difference between RPGs and Story Games (i.e. story games ARE rpgs).
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/117518/#Comment_117518
Sorry for the size of the image, but I couldn't resize it with bbcode. This is how the former admin of storygames seemed to visualize story games and their relationship to RPGs:
(http://www.story-games.com/goodies/sg-venn.jpg)
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;912256Clearly, the story games crowd does not seem to believe there is a difference between RPGs and Story Games (i.e. story games ARE rpgs).
There isn't. The latter is just a subset of the former.
Quote from: yosemitemike;912308There isn't. The latter is just a subset of the former.
Kinda came across this with the new Delta Green the other day.
Under no circumstances would DG ever be described as a Storygame, yet the introduction of Bonds gives a powerful tool to the
players to (potentially) drive expanded characterization and possibly new storylines.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911735I highly doubt that, but if you show me a link I'm more than happy to concede.
Sorry it took me so ling to respond. I am just too busy to post these days.
Most of the discussion can be found on these two threads:
http://14062642.weebly.talkiforum.com/20150209/your-hopes-and-desires-for-this-edition-of-th-4553324/ (http://14062642.weebly.talkiforum.com/20150209/your-hopes-and-desires-for-this-edition-of-th-4553324/)
http://14062642.weebly.talkiforum.com/20150209/product-line-what-do-you-want-to-see-4553331/ (http://14062642.weebly.talkiforum.com/20150209/product-line-what-do-you-want-to-see-4553331/)
Of course, nobody used the words "stupid GMs" the way I did, but that's what the argument for GM limitations, as it was communicated to me, amounts to.
Also, there were several threads on this site (and I believe you participated in them) where the 2d20 developers argued that many GMs weren't competent enough to handle such authority as - (god forbid) range increments (gasp) - measured in yards, and needed abstract "zones" so they couldn't abuse the players (among many other arguments).
And really, what is to doubt? It is not like arguments against GM authority (who supposedly abuse it or are unable to handle it) for the sake of the game or the players are uncommon.
Anyway, I think this particular argument is tangential to the main point, but since you asked for evidence... well there ya go.
QuoteOriginally Posted by ArrozConLeche
Clearly, the story games crowd does not seem to believe there is a difference between RPGs and Story Games (i.e. story games ARE rpgs).
Quote from: yosemitemike;912308There isn't. The latter is just a subset of the former.
Let's forget about labels for a moment, because they invite bias and judgment perceptions, and focus on what games do or can do from a mechanical perspective.
I think any RPG can be played OoC, regardless of rules. Players can remove themselves from character perspective, and with group agreement, anyone can make decisions about the world/game that the character could not.
However, the opposite is not true. Some games cannot be played IC because there are some game rules that can force a player out of an IC perspective and into an OoC perspective.
On the other hand, there are no mechanics in any game that can force you to play IC - it can't be done. Like I said, you can always play OoC.
In other words, one playstyle (OoC) is possible under any rules, and the other (IC) is not. Rules can enforce OoC perspective but they can't enforce IC perspective. Therein lies a difference.
I think this difference helps to explain why people who favor OoC play, or are comfortable with it, have a hard time seeing any difference, but the contrast is sharper to people who play RPGs IC.
Quote from: Motorskills;912399Under no circumstances would DG ever be described as a Storygame
Yeah because a player choosing out of character to have Cthulhu ruin the PC's marriage instead of the PC going insane is straight up IC-POV roleplaying. :rolleyes:
Jesus Wept.
Quote from: CRKrueger;912594Yeah because a player choosing out of character to have Cthulhu ruin the PC's marriage instead of the PC going insane is straight up IC-POV roleplaying. :rolleyes:
Jesus Wept.
If your imagination is that limited, you are best off sticking to murderhobo room clearance games.
Quote from: Motorskills;912654If your imagination is that limited, you are best off sticking to murderhobo room clearance games.
Snark aside, my point is that there is a spectrum, and while the moniker "storygame" may have some useful contribution, if it serves to divide, I'm not interested.
Quote from: Motorskills;912654If your imagination is that limited, you are best off sticking to murderhobo room clearance games.
If your understanding of your native tongue is that limited, so that simple definitions elude you; you are best off looking at assisted suicide, maybe?
Seriously, I understand the storytelling hooks and the drama. Faced with a Lovecraftian monstrosity, as your mind crumbles, you rely on the strength of your human connections to save you and let you fight on. But, in the end, it leaves that relationship, that memory somewhat tainted. The Mythos might be uncaring, but surviving it is a cruel irony. It's an old technique used again and again in narrative. How many times did Sam get Frodo to keep going on by invoking the memory of the Shire. In the end though, Frodo saved the Shire...for all Hobbits except himself and he sailed into the West. In the novel Christine, after surviving that horror together, Dennis and Leigh break up despite their love, because that horror is shared, and as long as they are together, the memory doesn't fade. It's powerful storytelling.
The POINT is though, the character isn't deciding any of that, the player is. Therefore it's an Out of Character mechanic, and when I invoke it, I move from roleplaying my character, to telling stories about my character. Therefore the Bond Mechanic is a Storygame mechanic, narrative mechanic, whatever you want to call it.
What I call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character.
What you call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character and telling stories about your character.
Sorry, your definition is imprecise and overbroad. It's like calling Rocky Road ice cream "chocolate". No, that definition will not do.
If the original Delta Green (without any OOC mechanics) was a roleplaying game, then the new Delta Green (which adds in non-roleplaying mechanics) is also a roleplaying game? At what point are we going to accept that...
1. A roleplaying game without any OOC mechanics at all.
and
2. A roleplaying game with core OOC mechanics.
...are not quite the same thing?
Nah, here's the real Venn diagram, the intersection of Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming...
(https://hgzfhw.dm2301.livefilestore.com/y3mCH0L4ppqm1VBJjUGgHpRzBCRqEHRzCn-MJNkuSr7XZL2iW7w5TA4CkaqxxpI5eYyCH2tGpeXC4dKfBhxkcQd_nYreWKOM4oLXxSROD_zkUovRJisTfxKQ6bLycVzragcceHC_wvD1yfrE7Xo_PUx9Pvpr8RhXi2wT07DXs244ig?width=660&height=426&cropmode=none)
Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming of course can all be done separately.
The intersection of Roleplaying and Storytelling is what we all did as kids, Playing Pretend.
The original wargames started off as Gaming, but the idea of a campaign and persistence led to something beyond isolated episodes. That led to growth and change of units and commanders. As they moved to skirmish and then man-to-man levels, the ability to inhabit a character both on the battlefield and off gave birth to the original RPGs, which were an intersection of Roleplaying and Gaming.
(Now I'm sure at this point some will claim that Storytelling was a feature, and perhaps, even back in the Braunstein days some people were keeping an eye to creating Story at the same time.) Mechanically, though, there was nothing to support it. The first RPGs were RPGs without OOC mechanics.
After Roleplaying Games came out, soon came Genre RPGs, the first games with mechanical support for Storytelling elements. Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics were born.
I don't know when the first Storytelling Game without Roleplay came about, it was probably a cardgame or somesuch.
Most games people think of as Traditional RPGs lie in the "RPGs without OOC Mechanics" intersection, with the Genre trailblazers being the first of the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics".
These days almost all RPG game design that is not specifically OSR, is focused exclusively in the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics" intersection. Pick a game that's come out in the last ten years that isn't a retroclone/OSR compatible or the umpteeth edition of a game that's been around for a while. It will have OOC mechanics, near guaranteed.
The only question to my mind is, can these mechanics be removed to allow mechanically for an exclusively IC-POV experience?
The switch between IC and OOC mechanics is binary and objective, it always has been. Where the subjectivity comes in is whether such an OOC mechanics breaks suspension of disbelief/IC Immersion for you.
"Yeah it's got OOC mechanics, but it doesn't bother me" =/= "It doesn't have OOC mechanics."
So as far as definitions go, what do we call the Venn Intersections?
RPGs without OOC mechanics - Roleplaying Games
Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics - Genre RPGs, Storytelling RPGs, Narrative RPGs, Tactical RPGs - the key definer here is WHY it is OOC.
Storytelling Games without Roleplaying - Storygames
Nah, here's the real Venn diagram, the intersection of Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming...
(https://hgzfhw.dm2301.livefilestore.com/y3mCH0L4ppqm1VBJjUGgHpRzBCRqEHRzCn-MJNkuSr7XZL2iW7w5TA4CkaqxxpI5eYyCH2tGpeXC4dKfBhxkcQd_nYreWKOM4oLXxSROD_zkUovRJisTfxKQ6bLycVzragcceHC_wvD1yfrE7Xo_PUx9Pvpr8RhXi2wT07DXs244ig?width=660&height=426&cropmode=none)
Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming of course can all be done separately.
The intersection of Roleplaying and Storytelling is what we all did as kids, Playing Pretend.
The original wargames started off as Gaming, but the idea of a campaign and persistence led to something beyond isolated episodes. That led to growth and change of units and commanders. As they moved to skirmish and then man-to-man levels, the ability to inhabit a character both on the battlefield and off gave birth to the original RPGs, which were an intersection of Roleplaying and Gaming.
(Now I'm sure at this point some will claim that Storytelling was a feature, and perhaps, even back in the Braunstein days some people were keeping an eye to creating Story at the same time.) Mechanically, though, there was nothing to support it. The first RPGs were RPGs without OOC mechanics.
After Roleplaying Games came out, soon came Genre RPGs, the first games with mechanical support for Storytelling elements. Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics were born.
I don't know when the first Storytelling Game without Roleplay came about, it was probably a cardgame or somesuch.
Most games people think of as Traditional RPGs lie in the "RPGs without OOC Mechanics" intersection, with the Genre trailblazers being the first of the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics".
These days almost all RPG game design that is not specifically OSR, is focused exclusively in the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics" intersection. Pick a game that's come out in the last ten years that isn't a retroclone/OSR compatible or the umpteeth edition of a game that's been around for a while. It will have OOC mechanics, near guaranteed.
The only question to my mind is, can these mechanics be removed to allow mechanically for an exclusively IC-POV experience?
The switch between IC and OOC mechanics is binary and objective, it always has been. Where the subjectivity comes in is whether such an OOC mechanics breaks suspension of disbelief/IC Immersion for you.
"Yeah it's got OOC mechanics, but it doesn't bother me" =/= "It doesn't have OOC mechanics."
So as far as definitions go, what do we call the Venn Intersections?
RPGs without OOC mechanics - Roleplaying Games
Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics - Genre RPGs, Storytelling RPGs, Narrative RPGs, Tactical RPGs - the key definer here is WHY it is OOC. (I suppose technically then some RPGs with OOC elements might lie outside this intersection, but I'd need to see the example).
Storytelling Games without Roleplaying - Storygames
A lot of people are going to have a problem with this, because once you decide to add specific OOC elements to mechanically support a playstyle they like, then you are, by definition, addin non-roleplaying mechanics into a roleplaying game. That should not happen without a change in descriptive language. Period. Sorry.
I am not saying that you're not roleplaying.
I am saying that you're not *just* roleplaying.
I think there's something to be said for this three-way split, but I think there is an oddity about defining one split based only on Out-of-Character *mechanics*, but it seems like that other lines aren't based purely on mechanics.
From what I can gather, the line between non-roleplaying game and roleplaying game isn't based primarily on mechanics. For example, there are single-figure wargames like Gladiator or Melee/Wizard, and there are also solo adventure books - like Choose-Your-Own-Adventure but using RPG mechanics. I think this line is defined more by what the players choose to do rather than the mechanics. If the players try to act out their characters, then its role-playing, but if they're just trying to win, it could be a wargame.
So I'd suggest a possible alternative, where the line to mixed center category (roleplaying/storytelling/gaming) is not based on mechanics. If the people at the table are making choices that are based on what would make a good story, then its mixed. If they aren't trying for story, then its just roleplaying and game.
Also, I'd point out that a lot of out-of-character mechanics aren't based around story, but rather are more about game balance or game flavor. For example, D&D4 was criticized for having a lot of out-of-character mechanics.
Quote from: CRKrueger;912685If your understanding of your native tongue is that limited, so that simple definitions elude you; you are best off looking at assisted suicide, maybe?
Seriously, I understand the storytelling hooks and the drama. Faced with a Lovecraftian monstrosity, as your mind crumbles, you rely on the strength of your human connections to save you and let you fight on. But, in the end, it leaves that relationship, that memory somewhat tainted. The Mythos might be uncaring, but surviving it is a cruel irony. It's an old technique used again and again in narrative. How many times did Sam get Frodo to keep going on by invoking the memory of the Shire. In the end though, Frodo saved the Shire...for all Hobbits except himself and he sailed into the West. In the novel Christine, after surviving that horror together, Dennis and Leigh break up despite their love, because that horror is shared, and as long as they are together, the memory doesn't fade. It's powerful storytelling.
The POINT is though, the character isn't deciding any of that, the player is. Therefore it's an Out of Character mechanic, and when I invoke it, I move from roleplaying my character, to telling stories about my character. Therefore the Bond Mechanic is a Storygame mechanic, narrative mechanic, whatever you want to call it.
What I call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character.
What you call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character and telling stories about your character.
Sorry, your definition is imprecise and overbroad. It's like calling Rocky Road ice cream "chocolate". No, that definition will not do.
If the original Delta Green (without any OOC mechanics) was a roleplaying game, then the new Delta Green (which adds in non-roleplaying mechanics) is also a roleplaying game? At what point are we going to accept that...
1. A roleplaying game without any OOC mechanics at all.
and
2. A roleplaying game with core OOC mechanics.
...are not quite the same thing?
I like your analysis, it certainly serves to drive the discussion forward, but I do think it's flawed.
At Gen Con this year I played
NSDM (the Cold War variant) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQ08PS0b_OAhUS5WMKHd5nAyEQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgencon.highprogrammer.com%2Fgencon-2016.cgi%2Fevent%2FRPG1694209&usg=AFQjCNHShkrkTDR7xl5Y9tRMBhEyJWU1iQ&sig2=5KsSEOaq_IzowQFtwMd2aA&bvm=bv.129422649,d.cGc). You (and eighty other individuals) each get a person/job/faction.
You then spend the next four hours running around trying to achieve your objectives via pure negotiation with the other players. But we aren't ourselves, we are absolutely roleplaying the person/job/faction we've been assigned.
While there was some scoring, it was purely nominal. The rules were entirely there to enable the referees to coordinate logistics.
I didn't need to know any rules.
Was it a roleplaying game? Was it a LARP? Well it doesn't easily fit into either of those categories. But it was live, and it was roleplaying, and it was most definitely a game.
As for my
Delta Green example, it wasn't meant to derail the discussion :).
But I stand by point, I think you are misinterpreting what is possible with that game mechanic of Bonds.
Essentially you are correct, the DM tells you that you take 5 points of Mad from seeing the Strange Thing, and you (the player) can offset that against [say, your character's marriage]. Mark up your character sheet and move on to saving the world. I imagine that's exactly how it will be played in one-shots.
However it doesn't
have to be as cold as that, especially not in longer campaigns.
You (and the DM) can roleplay out, it can lead to other IC interactions. For example, as the game unfolds, you can develop, and subsequently put stress on, Bonds with other PCs.
That's
fun. Brutal, but fun.
Ruleswise? You know that your character's relationship with his mentor in the FBI is going to take a huge hit. The severity (only) has already been determined by a die roll. But you can then roleplay out that scene, and it can go in a number of directions, and can lead to any number of new directions and consequences for the character, and the game. Yes, you are telling a story, but you are
not only telling a story. You are directly roleplaying your character, playing out deep interactions with NPCs and PCs.
Not sure where that fits in your scheme of things?
Quote from: Motorskills;912719You (and the DM) can roleplay out, it can lead to other IC interactions. For example, as the game unfolds, you can develop, and subsequently put stress on, Bonds with other PCs.
That's fun. Brutal, but fun.
Ruleswise? You know that your character's relationship with his mentor in the FBI is going to take a huge hit. The severity (only) has already been determined by a die roll. But you can then roleplay out that scene, and it can go in a number of directions, and can lead to any number of new directions and consequences for the character, and the game. Yes, you are telling a story, but you are not only telling a story. You are directly roleplaying your character, playing out deep interactions with NPCs and PCs.
Not sure where that fits in your scheme of things?
I never said you were *just* storytelling. Here's the mental flow (this assumes your definition of roleplaying means an IC-POV)
1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. You stop roleplaying your character, and now, as a player, engage the mechanic Projecting Onto a Bond to choose how the character's life will be affected by the psychological fallout.
3. You go back to roleplaying your character as you deal with the effects.
Lets compare with traditional CoC sanity.
1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. The GM uses the Sanity Rules to determine the outcome and informs you of the new state of your character's psychology.
3. You roleplay your character as you deal with the effects.
Do you see the difference? In the traditional method, the GM informed me of the change, just as the GM informs you that you take a wound, or you fail to pick the lock, or you find the text. It's a simple formula.
Character's actions produce input-->Rules and GM determine output-->Character deals with new situation.
Of course any type of personality mechanic carries with it issues, whether insanity or charm/fear spells or the like. The big difference between the two is that the traditional method I can stay in character and not stop roleplaying. In the new method, I must join the GM in deciding from the third person, how this effects my character, and then drop back inside the character to continue.
Some people, that's how they always have roleplayed, half in-half out, always a dual first/third perspective. For some people, switching back and forth is what they enjoy, which is fine - but they
are switching.
So it comes back to the idea that games which have mechanics that force you to switch, and those that do not, have a fundamental difference within the context of roleplaying that is worthy of classification.
Not so that the Pundit can become Drumph's RPG Czar and declare what games get put on the fire, or whatever other dire consequence people think is going to occur, but so we can simply talk about games honestly without having to be always, every single time, going to the mattresses over terminology as a deliberate stonewalling tactic.
Quote from: jhkim;912711I think there's something to be said for this three-way split, but I think there is an oddity about defining one split based only on Out-of-Character *mechanics*, but it seems like that other lines aren't based purely on mechanics.
From what I can gather, the line between non-roleplaying game and roleplaying game isn't based primarily on mechanics. For example, there are single-figure wargames like Gladiator or Melee/Wizard, and there are also solo adventure books - like Choose-Your-Own-Adventure but using RPG mechanics. I think this line is defined more by what the players choose to do rather than the mechanics. If the players try to act out their characters, then its role-playing, but if they're just trying to win, it could be a wargame.
So I'd suggest a possible alternative, where the line to mixed center category (roleplaying/storytelling/gaming) is not based on mechanics. If the people at the table are making choices that are based on what would make a good story, then its mixed. If they aren't trying for story, then its just roleplaying and game.
Also, I'd point out that a lot of out-of-character mechanics aren't based around story, but rather are more about game balance or game flavor. For example, D&D4 was criticized for having a lot of out-of-character mechanics.
Roleplaying is a mental state. I can roleplay my gangers in Necromunda, choosing what they do based on their personality, not what would be tactically expedient. I could do the same with many games. In that Wick/Zak video, Wick points to his right hand which contains everything that makes a game a roleplaying game, he said he couldn't identify what was in that hand.
That's because there can never be such a thing as a Roleplaying Mechanic. It cannot exist, because you could always choose to invoke it for some other reason (like hoping to get laid because there's a new hottie at the table). At best, the mechanic can be neutral, which allows you invoke it as a character.
There can, however, be such a thing as a non-Roleplaying Mechanic. A mechanic that cannot be engaged by the character, the choice to engage it must be made by the player.
So what is a Roleplaying Game? (See Brendan, I told you this topic was Roleplaying related.)
A roleplaying game is a game that allows the player to roleplay a character in a world, and contains rules and mechanics that allows the character to make any choice that character could make, and resolve the outcome.
That's why Necromunda isn't a Roleplaying Game. There are lots of choices the gangers could make on the battlefield that they cannot choose, and of course, you don't roleplay the gangers off the battlefield at all, you find out what happens to them from the third person.
BTW, all these definitions I'm throwing out are obviously drafts, the whole point of this is people proposing their own.
I understand where you're going with the "Reason people are playing this game" or "motivation for their choice", Rosen is of a similar idea, but the problem is, you guys are kind of doing that from a Forge position of coherence.
I can play OD&D from a tactical point of view, always choosing rules optimum decisions.
I can play OD&D from a roleplaying point of view, always staying in character.
I can play OD&D from a storytelling point of view, always doing what makes for what I think is dramatically interesting.
I can play OD&D from a social point of view, always supporting what everyone else is doing and helping out.
So what type of game is that?
No, I'm convinced you have to focus on mechanics, and since we are talking specifically about the central area where Roleplaying and Storytelling mix, any classification or definition should include whether such games possess non-Roleplaying mechanics.
Now you do have a point in that OOC mechanics are not all Storytelling based. Some are there to give tactical depth, to make the combat play more problem-solving, more wargamey or boardgamey for lack of a better term. So there's probably another smaller circle to put in there, I wouldn't call Venn Diagramming a particular specialty.
No definition or model will ever be perfect, but I think from a lot of the responses so far from different sides of the "Eternal War" there's something there, and it seems like we know it when we see it, but can we define it?
Looking at that Venn again.
In this context, we're definitely talking about an imaginary person in an imaginary world (yeah an imaginary copy of you in a "real world" with time travel or zombies still applies :p) and when you get right down to it, there's really only two ways you can deal with this imaginary person and that imaginary world.
First Person - In Character - As that person - Roleplaying
Third Person - Out of Character - About that person - Storytelling
Then you add Gaming in, because we're talking about Games.
Roleplaying and Storytelling by themselves with no Gaming I think are fine.
Gaming without Roleplaying and Storytelling I think is fine.
I guess the issue is defining the intersections rather than listing the activities that exist in those intersections, that's where I mixed things up, isn't it? I guess in proper Venniquette, the activities would have their own smaller circles.
The biggest issue I guess is that Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics could also exist in the intersection between Roleplaying and Gaming as well as the intersection of all three. It depends why the mechanic is OOC. Which brings us back to the Rosen/Kim/Anon opinion of player motivation being key, what is the player after?
But as I pointed out above with OD&D, in defining games, it really doesn't matter what the player is after - unless that goal is mechanically supported. Which bring us back to mechanics.
At least I think...Rosen did point out a game which he thinks is obviously a Storygame, but has no actual mechanical support for it. I'd like to hear more about how the game supports story through convention and rules without mechanics.
Quote from: CRKrueger;912796So what is a Roleplaying Game? (See Brendan, I told you this topic was Roleplaying related.)
A roleplaying game is a game that allows the player to roleplay a character in a world, and contains rules and mechanics that allows the character to make any choice that character could make, and resolve the outcome.
That's why Necromunda isn't a Roleplaying Game. There are lots of choices the gangers could make on the battlefield that they cannot choose, and of course, you don't roleplay the gangers off the battlefield at all, you find out what happens to them from the third person.
That definition may work for Necromunda, but I don't think it works more generally. Although none of them have had market success recently, there are refereed wargames where players can do anything that they want tactically. The referee is there to judge how those actions would work. In Prussia this was called "Free Kriegspiel".
There are two qualities here: (1) having anything possible by using a referee; and (2) acting out what your character would do. Like chocolate and peanut-butter, these work well together - but they aren't intrinsically linked.
To take two examples:
1) An ongoing Call of Cthulhu game which has gone on for years, with characters marrying and having children, and otherwise having detailed lives. There are several game sessions where no dice are rolled, spent all in in-character discussion - and most mechanics are ignored anyway.
2) A tournament Tunnels & Trolls game played for how many points the team can accumulate over the four hour time span. There is nothing about personality at all for the characters, and the players don't care.
I think that these are really two pretty distinct activities, but both operate purely by adjudicated in-character actions.
There are useful distinctions to be made about mechanics, but I don't think that's the whole picture.
Quote from: jhkim;912843Although none of them have had market success recently, there are refereed wargames where players can do anything that they want tactically. The referee is there to judge how those actions would work. In Prussia this was called "Free Kriegspiel".
And one might play Kriegspiel while roleplaying or while not roleplaying. I'm confused by your use of terms. When you say, "players can do anything they want tactically" are you referring to a player who is playing an armor company commander or a regimental commander taking any action that an officer in that situation could take or are you referring to some nebulous, 3rd person semi-omniscient overhead view where the player moves units on a board without any need to issue orders or have those orders carried out (or messed up) by an intermediary at a lower level in the command structure?
QuoteThere are two qualities here: (1) having anything possible by using a referee; and (2) acting out what your character would do. Like chocolate and peanut-butter, these work well together - but they aren't intrinsically linked.
The distinction is not acting out what your character would do, it is taking actions as your character and reacting to the adjudicated outcome as your character. (Here I'm using the word "adjudicated" to cover either a simple mechanistic process as well as a referee moderated determination of outcome.)
Quote1) An ongoing Call of Cthulhu game which has gone on for years, with characters marrying and having children, and otherwise having detailed lives. There are several game sessions where no dice are rolled, spent all in in-character discussion - and most mechanics are ignored anyway.
I'm confused what you mean by playing a game of Call of Cthulhu where "most mechanics are ignored." That sounds like it might be what Krueger is calling storytelling+roleplaying-gaming. But you might mean something else. As I said, I am confused by your terminology.
Quote2) A tournament Tunnels & Trolls game played for how many points the team can accumulate over the four hour time span. There is nothing about personality at all for the characters, and the players don't care.
Sounds like a game played from a 3rd person, out of character perspective. Or what Kruger is calling Wargaming-roleplaying.
QuoteI think that these are really two pretty distinct activities, but both operate purely by adjudicated in-character actions.
Again, it is unclear to me that your first example is using any sort of rules adjudication or even whether it uses any sort of referee adjudication. It sounds like shared storytelling. A verbal version of a shared writing exercise.
And it is unclear to me whether anyone is operating in-character in your second example. It sounds more likely that all conversation is occurring out of character, that tactics are out of character, and that the mechanics are providing the only in-character action. Also, this sounds like a bizarre edge case to me, but that may well be a matter of my lack of experience. I've never played Tunnels & Trolls or attended a T&T focused con. Is this sort of thing popular or even just something that occurs regularly among T&T players?
QuoteThere are useful distinctions to be made about mechanics, but I don't think that's the whole picture.
Mechanics seem a more fruitful area to examine for distinctions than either 3rd party subjective assessments of player agendas or some sort of self reporting method of players describing their own agenda(s).
Kinda with Bren, not sure those are really showing unique outliers.
I will say, John, you and Rosen are selling me on their being other axes we can base definitions on, but also remain convinced that when talking about a Roleplaying Game, then Roleplaying (IC) Game Mechanics vs. Non-Roleplaying (OOC) Game Mechanics must remain the primary axis of definition, even if it must, due to other axes, allow for further classifications.
Quote from: jhkim;912843To take two examples:
1) An ongoing Call of Cthulhu game which has gone on for years, with characters marrying and having children, and otherwise having detailed lives. There are several game sessions where no dice are rolled, spent all in in-character discussion - and most mechanics are ignored anyway.
2) A tournament Tunnels & Trolls game played for how many points the team can accumulate over the four hour time span. There is nothing about personality at all for the characters, and the players don't care.
I think that these are really two pretty distinct activities, but both operate purely by adjudicated in-character actions.
There are useful distinctions to be made about mechanics, but I don't think that's the whole picture.
Just taking a stab at this, but I think example 1 falls under "
no game." It is playing pretend, or mostly play pretend. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Some of the best sessions I have ever had were sans-mechanics and dice rolling. The rules are there if you want them, but if you don't use them, is it a game? Also I think when you enter the "no game" world of playing pretend, distinctions between IC and OOC become rather fuzzy and easy to transition between because there are no rules. If you watch kids "play pretend" they do so largely IC until one of them says "hay, let's be dinosaurs" or something, at which point they are making that meta OOC decision. Either way, the play proceeds between IC and OOC quite naturally in play pretend.
Example 2 is "
all game," I think. Its not an RPG at all. It resembles an RPG because the strategic pieces are characters. Neither storytellyng nor roleplaying is part of the
game. It's open-option refereed gaming, kinda like Tony Bath wargaming. Of course, a player is always free to imagine what he wants, act in character, or tell the events of the game as a story, but the roleplaying and storytelling has no impact on the game. I used to play a lot of wargaming, and when I was pushing lead Napoleonics, I might sometimes start speaking French or acting like Napoleon, but in no way was it an RPG.
For me anyway, neither of these examples are RPGs. They are examples of "no game" and "all game," and therefore the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling within them have little bearing on the conversation at hand. At least that's how I see it.
Quote from: Madprofessor;913249For me anyway, neither of these examples are RPGs. They are examples of "no game" and "all game," and therefore the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling within them have little bearing on the conversation at hand. At least that's how I see it.
Whereas now I'm seeing you, me, and Kruger in our new clubhouse discussing what sort of hats club members should wear or maybe whose going out for a beer run.
If there is a stretch or even an entire session of "just role-playing" of social interactions in a campaign that is using RPG rules, but no one thinks to roll any dice for anything, I would say it is still an RPG. The players (I would assume) are still playing in the context of the campaign and their characters and the situation therein. Even if no one does anything that requires a roll, the situation still frames what happens and what makes sense and what doesn't, and it COULD switch to something that involves rolls and game mechanics at any time, as soon as someone decides to take an action that involves rules and rolls.
Similarly, I think an all-combat session is still an RPG and still "role-playing" as long as there are characters in the game who are acting as if they were people in that situation. In fact, that's one of my main interests. How do the characters handle dangerous high-stakes situations? I only think it's not role-playing when the players aren't relating to the situation and making decisions as the in-game people, but rather just as players with pieces and OOC thinking.
Quote from: CRKrueger;912794I never said you were *just* storytelling. Here's the mental flow (this assumes your definition of roleplaying means an IC-POV)
1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. You stop roleplaying your character, and now, as a player, engage the mechanic Projecting Onto a Bond to choose how the character's life will be affected by the psychological fallout.
3. You go back to roleplaying your character as you deal with the effects.
Lets compare with traditional CoC sanity.
1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. The GM uses the Sanity Rules to determine the outcome and informs you of the new state of your character's psychology.
3. You roleplay your character as you deal with the effects.
It's a storygame if the player decides how it affects the character
It's a roleplaying game if the GM decides how it affects the character
Wow, more than one driveby, must have been a rough couple of weeks. Swing by the "Behind the Curtain" thread, I'm sure you can give yourself a couple more chuckles on your way out.
"Roleplaying Game" is a term that came about more or less by accident. There was a period of about two years where people were trying to come up with a term for this new kind of almost sort of not quite wargame, and when somebody said 'Roleplaying Game' the term was latched onto like a cow full of leeches. The term did not come from intensive study and analysis.
I expect it kinda came a little bit from people noticing they were playing a role, maybe sorta looking at things a bit from the one man unit point of view?
Quote from: CRKrueger;913803Wow, more than one driveby, must have been a rough couple of weeks. Swing by the "Behind the Curtain" thread, I'm sure you can give yourself a couple more chuckles on your way out.
I've been chuckling all through this threads of yours.
The sophistry you desperately cling to hilariously delicious to partake of.
Quote from: Sommerjon;913979I've been chuckling all through this threads of yours.
The sophistry you desperately cling to hilariously delicious to partake of.
Yeah, yeah, we all know the only thing you find hilarious here are your own shits'n'giggles troll posts.
See you next time.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914002Yeah, yeah, we all know the only thing you find hilarious here are your own shits'n'giggles troll posts.
See you next time.
What the fuck have you established in 135 posts?
Nothing.
You ignore or justify the Non-Roleplaying (OOC) Game Mechanics of the game(s) you busted your cherry on.
That is why it's fucking hilarious.
Seems somewhat interesting to me to look at what we mean by the terms we use to describe games, and to develop the taxonomy, so that we can develop how we think about the games and understand better what we do/like and don't do/like more accurately. It may reduce the number of raging forum exchanges where people are mainly getting hung up on disagreement on terms they haven't thought through.
Much more interesting to me than weird juvenile sexual put-down metaphors.
Quote from: Skarg;914042Much more interesting to me than weird juvenile sexual put-down metaphors.
You can fucking say that again.
Quote from: Skarg;914042Seems somewhat interesting to me to look at what we mean by the terms we use to describe games, and to develop the taxonomy, so that we can develop how we think about the games and understand better what we do/like and don't do/like more accurately. It may reduce the number of raging forum exchanges where people are mainly getting hung up on disagreement on terms they haven't thought through.
Much more interesting to me than weird juvenile sexual put-down metaphors.
Sommerjon pops in every 2-6 weeks, finds threads to driveby and stir the shit in, giggling and sneering all the while, then goes on hiatus, rinse repeat. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
So if you were looking for an honest discussion where someone brought up a list of mechanics present in early roleplaying games that they thought was actually OOC in an attempt to challenge the notion that the earliest RPGs didn't have OOC mechanics - it won't be from Sommerjon. He more than has the capability, just not the interest. That's not why he's here.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914071Sommerjon pops in every 2-6 weeks, finds threads to driveby and stir the shit in, giggling and sneering all the while, then goes on hiatus, rinse repeat. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
So if you were looking for an honest discussion where someone brought up a list of mechanics present in early roleplaying games that they thought was actually OOC in an attempt to challenge the notion that the earliest RPGs didn't have OOC mechanics - it won't be from Sommerjon. He more than has the capability, just not the interest. That's not why he's here.
So the question seems relevant even though it came from an adolescent troll. Are there any OoC mechanics in the original game or 1st ed?
...:confused:
I can't think of any. Certainly nothing that is core to play. Maybe some spell? Attracting followers at name level? No, not really. Something in the DMG? There's a shit ton of rules and sub-systems in 1e and I'm coming up empty. Anybody?
Quote from: Skarg;913676If there is a stretch or even an entire session of "just role-playing" of social interactions in a campaign that is using RPG rules, but no one thinks to roll any dice for anything, I would say it is still an RPG. The players (I would assume) are still playing in the context of the campaign and their characters and the situation therein. Even if no one does anything that requires a roll, the situation still frames what happens and what makes sense and what doesn't, and it COULD switch to something that involves rolls and game mechanics at any time, as soon as someone decides to take an action that involves rules and rolls.
Yeah, I see what you are saying. The more I consider it, I think the problem with this scenario within the context of our discussion is that we are talking about how a group chooses to play, not what the game does mechanically. So if a game's mechanics do X, but a group chooses to ignore the mechanics, then we can't exactly use that anecdotal deviation of play style as evidence for defining the
game. It's just a play style choice that the game allows for. I am scratching my head a bit, but I don't think it has anything to do with our mechanical definitions, and neither does it contradict the argument that games can or should be defined by their mechanics. I think?
QuoteSimilarly, I think an all-combat session is still an RPG and still "role-playing" as long as there are characters in the game who are acting as if they were people in that situation. In fact, that's one of my main interests. How do the characters handle dangerous high-stakes situations? I only think it's not role-playing when the players aren't relating to the situation and making decisions as the in-game people, but rather just as players with pieces and OOC thinking.
True. Combat, even extended combat, can easily be either IC or OoC. So again, that is not a determining factor in what the game is. The question is whether the game rules asks or forces the player to make decision that the character could not, or determine in-game widgets or aspects of the world that are not the character - at least in defining the boundaries between RPG and storygame. The boundaries between wargame (or board game) and RPGs are perhaps beyond the scope of this conversation.
Quote from: Sommerjon;914016You ignore or justify the Non-Roleplaying (OOC) Game Mechanics of the game(s) you busted your cherry on.
That is why it's fucking hilarious.
Quote from: Madprofessor;914167So the question seems relevant even though it came from an adolescent troll. Are there any OoC mechanics in the original game or 1st ed?
...:confused:
I can't think of any. Certainly nothing that is core to play. Maybe some spell? Attracting followers at name level? No, not really. Something in the DMG? There's a shit ton of rules and sub-systems in 1e and I'm coming up empty. Anybody?
And lookey there, just 4 posts before a dipshit makes the claim.
Roleplay: to act out the role of
Game: a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasureIt's that simple. If you take it further you are looking for exclusionary language.
Cuz we all know we are not all lumped into one box where we all play pretend, no, no, no. You can't be associated with them over there, omg no. That is why there are oodles of little boxes inside the big box of play pretend
Quote from: Sommerjon;914266And lookey there, just 4 posts before a dipshit makes the claim.
Roleplay: to act out the role of
Game: a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure
It's that simple. If you take it further you are looking for exclusionary language.
Cuz we all know we are not all lumped into one box where we all play pretend, no, no, no. You can't be associated with them over there, omg no. That is why there are oodles of little boxes inside the big box of play pretend
First of all, YOU made a claim - that the original game included OoC mechanics. That
is a claim, and you either
cannot back it up because you have no evidence, or you
will not back it up because you're really just a troll whose only purpose is to attack people and attempt to destroy and derail their conversations.
Second, I did not make a claim. I rephrased your claim as a question because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt despite your idiotic language, and because I wanted to give people (including you) a chance to make a reasonable evidence based response to your claim.
Third, nobody is "excluding" anybody. Chess is not the same as rugby. Yet, they are both games. It is helpful to everyone that we have different words for these different games (or else our rugby fields might be littered with the corpses of unsuspecting chess players who showed up to the "
game"). By defining, we are giving people greater power to communicate accurately, understand and choose. It is an effort to reduce conflict, not increase it.
Fourth, if your not a troll and I have misjudged you, you have the power to prove it by acting like a decent human being.
Quote from: Madprofessor;914172Yeah, I see what you are saying. The more I consider it, I think the problem with this scenario within the context of our discussion is that we are talking about how a group chooses to play, not what the game does mechanically. So if a game's mechanics do X, but a group chooses to ignore the mechanics, then we can't exactly use that anecdotal deviation of play style as evidence for defining the game. It's just a play style choice that the game allows for. I am scratching my head a bit, but I don't think it has anything to do with our mechanical definitions, and neither does it contradict the argument that games can or should be defined by their mechanics. I think?...
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at without an example or two. I think there are several possible issues to look at, and some of them are a bit grey. Examples:
* Some games emphasize the intent as being about the story, and the game mechanics are a simple system for choosing who gets to narrate what happens, and to what degree, and who else can defy that narration, but the actual situation and how plausible the narrations are actually has almost no impact on cause & effect. I'm thinking of Microscope and my little knowledge of Mage: The Ascension.
- I'd call Microscope a story game (which I actually think is interesting but if it's an RPG, I'd say it's an RPG where the players are basically all GM's in the world creation stage, and that it can be an interesting way to come up with settings for non-story RPGs).
- I'd call Mage: The Ascension (barely) an RPG, but one with story-game-like abstract mechanics. For my tastes, it's interesting as an idea but strikes me as meh and probably very unlikely to be anything I'd like unless run by a genius GM whose style I appreciated (which seems unlikely, given my preference for logical details and mechanics).
* In a session of a trad RPG with just social role-playing going on for a while, players may decide to ignore using the rules for many things that do have rules that could be used, either because it seems pointless or tedious (e.g. supplies, shopping, equipment maintenance, training, encumbrance, even some minor fighting), isn't interesting to the players... However if anything gets proposed that really doesn't make sense if played out, it probably won't be allowed IF the players/GM notice.
- I'd call this non-story RPG with players who are apathetic about some things and so are ignoring various details.
* The GM in a trad game may dictate outcomes because they think it's most fun if a certain outcome is forced, possibly because it will lead to a more interesting situation that WILL be gamed out. Lapsing in and out of story mode as a way to frame and arrive at interesting non-story game situations.
- I'd call this "between sessions" frame setting or downtime resolution by the GM, in order to game the interesting parts. It's sort of story-game-like except the story-game part is used to get past the parts that don't seem interesting to game, to get to more interesting parts to game in a non-story way.
* Players saying they do things in a certain way and describing their results and follow-up, to make things move quickly or out of self-glorification or whatever. GM may or may not decide to stop them and require a roll or assess mechanical effects.
- This seems like story-game hiccup moments to me.
* Players saying things like "I jump on the giant serpent's neck and climb up from behind as it thrashes and stab out its eyes with my dagger!" and the GM deciding that sounds cool and requiring a roll but then letting it happen because Rule of Cool.
- I call this a story-game burp, and hate the part where the roll is generally unfairly allowed to work and not fail for various logical and mechanical reasons, and how it abandons the more sober/realistic approaches of other players.
Quote from: Madprofessor;914167I can't think of any. Certainly nothing that is core to play. Maybe some spell? Attracting followers at name level? No, not really. Something in the DMG? There's a shit ton of rules and sub-systems in 1e and I'm coming up empty. Anybody?
I don't remember anything either but it has been a long time since I played either of those systems. Maybe someone could give five concrete examples of such rules?
I do think there is a difference between "ignoring the rules" and "the rules not being required". In earlier forms of D&D you could have characters talk and do all kinds of things that didn't call on "the rules" as we seem to be considering them here. That doesn't mean that you aren't playing D&D for the duration of in-character conversation or solving traps and puzzles purely through a verbal representation of actions taken.
I do think that some of this confusion is abated if you consider there to be a rule such that "what a player says is what happens in the game" and then figure out when this holds to be true. In a traditional game this boils down to: 1- always for the GM, 2- only within the sphere of a specific character or characters for players, and only if not contradicted by 1.
In a story game, I think that the rules of the game are not about what happens, but about who has the authority to say what happens. Story games don't concern themselves with "rules as physics". To the admittedly imprecise degree that they do, you are not dealing with a story game.
I think I could be more clear here if some of these things I am talking about had actual words for them. "Rules as physics" is not the best descriptive phrase. And talking about meta layers is never easy. What is the thing narrative rules are meta to? The game-world? Again not a very good phrase as it conveys very little about what is included within the hypothetical construct.
You start at the wrong end.
Instead of asking, “What’s a storygame”, ask “What’s a storygamer?” It’s amazingly hard to single out storygamers at the gaming table, unless they come forward and tell you: “I am a storygamer.” Determining whether a game is a storygame or another kind of RPG is also inconclusive more often than not. Why is that?
“Storygamer” is NOT really about things done at the table or rules to do them buy. Sure, there are games that storygamers like. But not all of them would usually be called storygames, D&D4 comes to mind or recently Godbound, which claims to be OSR, while on the other hand Fate, despite its very abstract rules, is not that well regarded, as one might assume.
So what is it really? Storygaming is a school of discussing and conceptualizing RPGs. It’s not what you do, it’s how you talk about it. Much like the other outspoken school, the Old School Revolution, Storygamers have a narrative on how RPGs work.
I will now present that narrative.
An OSR player might say:
Before play, a GM invite players to his or her campaign. Rules will be used to determine events in the campaign world, as interpreted by the GM as rulings.A storygamer might say:
Before play, players gather and decide upon a game to play. Rules will be used to structure the negotiation about events in the fiction. During play, the group might inadvertently drift the focus of the game or hack it outright.So what is the difference? Really mostly the vocabulary. Of course, storygamers do not “know” what a GM is. There might be GMs in a certain game, but that is part of the rules of that particular game, nothing that exists “before”. But you wouldn’t realize that, when people sit down to play some D&D. Also note that neither narrative is objectively true. They are more like legal fictions.
So what’s a storygame then?
A storygame is a game that talks like a storygamer.For example the PbtA family of games is as storygame-y as they get, even though they do not really feature Fate points or things like that. But let’s have look at Dungeonworld:
QuoteSpout Lore
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.
With this “move” the player uses a character ability to get an effect, namely the GM explaining something about the game world.
According to the OP and many other posters here, that isn’t a “storygame mechanic”. But that’s not the point. The language constantly references people at the table talking to one another. “The GM will tell…”, “The GM may ask…”, “Tell them…” That’s what makes a storygame.
And that’s why Fate doesn’t quite fit: It doesn’t provide many rules to actually structure your communication about the fiction. It doesn't tell you when to say what.
Quote from: Madprofessor;914306First of all, YOU made a claim - that the original game included OoC mechanics. That is a claim, and you either cannot back it up because you have no evidence, or you will not back it up because you're really just a troll whose only purpose is to attack people and attempt to destroy and derail their conversations.
Second, I did not make a claim. I rephrased your claim as a question because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt despite your idiotic language, and because I wanted to give people (including you) a chance to make a reasonable evidence based response to your claim.
Third, nobody is "excluding" anybody. Chess is not the same as rugby. Yet, they are both games. It is helpful to everyone that we have different words for these different games (or else our rugby fields might be littered with the corpses of unsuspecting chess players who showed up to the "game"). By defining, we are giving people greater power to communicate accurately, understand and choose. It is an effort to reduce conflict, not increase it.
Fourth, if your not a troll and I have misjudged you, you have the power to prove it by acting like a decent human being.
You just compared chess and rugby and claim I am the idiot?
You not once, not twice, but three times 'call me out' but I'm the troll?
Quote from: Manzanaro;914454There's a reason Tolkien doesn't include orc children in LotR.
Probably not the only reason though. Goblins (and Orcs) originated as a corruption of elves by Morgoth in the First Age. We don't see any elf children either. Under certain circumstances goblin kids may be pretty rare. Note that in the Hobbit, the Goblins recognized Orcrist and Glamdring calling them Beater and Biter. Those two swords were named before the fall of Gondolin in the First Age and were lost a long time ago (can't recall when, but probably before the fall of the Witch King of Angmar so 1000+ years.)
Quote from: Maarzan;914467With don´t treat others in a way you don´t want to be treated yourselve there ist probably a base for universal moral - as long as this works both ways.
Maybe one of the bible scholars can clarify, but I don't think the word "other" has the same meaning in the bible as it usually does in English today, i.e. in English today all people fall into the category of "other people." In many cultures strangers from another culture weren't necessarily considered to be "other people." For lots of cultures you had these categories: (1) family; (2) in-group (village, clan, tribe, polis, cultural grouping and later nation state); (3) out-group (people from another clan, tribe, village, polis, or cultural group). You were expected to show preference for people in your family, but rules against murder applied to everyone in the wider in-group. Guest obligation typically applied to people from your in-group, but often did not apply to people from the out-group. One thing we repeatedly see with the rise of larger and larger groups of people is the extension membership in the in-group. Until you get to what we have today where it is common to see the in-group as at least my country/culture and often as all humanity. In the 20th century we even see some people making extensions of the in-group to all sentient life, all primates, all cute and fuzzy animals, etc.
Quote from: Manzanaro;914468Why would we have to be careful about judging things like human sacrifice and slavery?
Being an unpaid devil's advocate...seriously that bastard is cheap let me take a stab at a counter.
In appears that in some times and places the sacrifices may have been volunteers. We praise martyrs to a cause we believe in our people who give their life to save another person's life. How is either different than a person who voluntary sacrifices their life as part of a cultural ritual thought to ensure that the sun rises, the rain falls, and the crops grow? Also in a number of cultures suicide is considered an acceptable action under certain circumstances. Isn't that too a form of voluntary human sacrifice or martyrdom?
Slavery isn't the same in all times and places. In some times and places, slavery was a status that one could enter or leave. In Rome for example, slaves could earn money, make investments, and many (but nowhere near most) slaves purchased their freedom. And in the ancient world slavery was not based on being from some place, culture, or race but was originally the outcome of capture in warfare or of selling oneself or family to pay for debt. Anyone could become a slave. All that was required was defeat in a military conflict or severe economic reversals. So slavery was an equal opportunity legal status. And if we look at combat, what is the alternative to enslaving one's enemies? Slavery was sometimes the lesser of two evils. Kill them or capture and enslave them were two traditional alternatives. (A third alternative was maiming so they couldn't take up arms again, see the supposed origin of the British V-for-Victory. Frequently this condemned the victim to a retched life of begging and poverty or placed them as a dependent and a burden on their family. And if resources were scared, forced the victim and family to a cruel choice of who to feed.) Nobody in the ancient world really saw being a slave as a good thing (often defeat in war and enslavement was deeply and profoundly humiliating, see also Roman views when one might fall on one's sword.)
Quote from: 1of3;914428You start at the wrong end.
Wrong in what sense" Wrong for what purpose? Recall the goal is to characterize games, not the people who play the game.
QuoteSo what's a storygame then? A storygame is a game that talks like a storygamer.
That's a vague and not particularly helpful definition. Despite starting in a different place, you didn't end up in a better place.
Quote from: Sommerjon;914457You just compared chess and rugby and claim I am the idiot?
You not once, not twice, but three times 'call me out' but I'm the troll?
Those are rhetorical questions, right?
Quote from: Bren;914483Recall the goal is to characterize games, not the people who play the game.
But I think most people are ignoring the history.
There was this game called D&D. It was kind of a wargame but kind of not, sort of like a hyper-focused skirmish game but unlike Fight in the Skies or Korns you could do stuff OTHER than fight battles.
Then some other games kind of like it came out. And people continued to look for a categorical name for these games.
Then somebody called one a "role playing game" and everybody jumped on the term. Not because there was some rigid scientific definition, but because it was a handy term. If somebody had come up with "character game" or "microskirmish game" or "lifepath game" first, there is an excellent chance that the name would have stuck. That is the crux of my point; it's a name that just popped up, and stuck.
And for the next several decades people published "role playing games" by the simple expedient of publishing a game and calling it a "role playing game." That's why people saying "A role playing game is one in which," are doing nothing other than stating their personal opinion, and no two are alike.
There was no "central authority of RPG labeling" or other shit like that. I could have published WRG ancients 7th edition and called it a "role playing game" and nobody could have stopped me. There may have been informal pushback of the "what the fuck, asshole" variety, but nobody could have told me to "not call it a RPG" and made it stick.
A "role playing game," in the only practical definition, is a game that the creator calls a "role playing game." Same with story games; somebody had a game that was "kind of like a RPG but not" and they wanted a term for it, and they came up with "story game."
There IS no rigid definition, and never has been. I think the probability of evolving useful definitions of either term is extremely unlikely, since both terms came about in a community with the mindset of "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914526But I think most people are ignoring the history.
If history tells us anything, it is that most people ignore it most of the time.*
As regards which other names might have stuck...hard to say given we don't really have a control group to test. I note that the term had other applications at the time in the counseling/psychology field which was itself reaching popular consciousness at the same time. I suspect that gave it a bit of a leg up as a term that sounded like it meant something. That being said,
"character game" doesn't seem bad. All those games we tend to identify now as roleplaying game had one (or more) characters who were the object of the player's play.
"microskirmish game" I think this was doomed to fall out of use once D&D became a popular game. For many of the same reasons that the ability to properly conduct a skirmish dropped out of the list of required skills to play an RPG.
"lifepath game" would have been a natural fit to games like Traveller that actual featured a life path. It seems a bit less natural to games that don't include something similar as part of the character creation even though the rest of the game follows the life of one or more characters. Personally, I expect the existing popularity of The Game of Life (https://boardgamegeek.com/camo/4a2d178631265e53567fb56c39abceae376dd4b2/687474703a2f2f61313738322e70686f626f732e6170706c652e636f6d2f75732f7233302f507572706c65332f76342f66312f66642f31312f66316664313161652d333365312d343564352d333362302d3532343138373464343730312f6d7a6c2e76736c766d6972772e706e67), would have made that name too similar to a kids game for girls for the name of a game played predominantly by adolescent (or younger) males. Of course, had it caught on, the hobby might have had an easier time expanding the number of female players in the early days.
Of course all of this is a bit of post hoc rationalization. But post hoc is really all we can do at this point.
Role-playing Game as a moniker for a game in which you pretend you are a single character doesn't to me sound like it just fell out of the sky and it could as easily have been called Man-to-Man Wargaming or Microskirmishing. Adventure Gaming, maybe. But what characterized early D&D as separate from wargames was the focus on single-character and doing things other than wargaming. So considering the term Role-playing was already being used in other circles for "playing a role" I kinda doubt using that term for a game in which you "played a role" was a random lottery win or triple lightning strike.
Anytime someone creates something new, there isn't a name for it until someone makes one up. Forty years later and you'd have me believe there's no language we can use to define the difference between Amber and Fiasco? Between MERP and TOR? Between Marvel FASERIP and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying? Between OD&D and My Life With Master? Between AD&D and The Mountain Witch? Bullshit.
There will never be a hard definition of any of these terms. That would require getting a large percentage of gamers to agree on something that is very vague and subjective. It's hard enough to get a handful of them to agree on what the plain text of a rule book says.
Quote from: yosemitemike;914558There will never be a hard definition of any of these terms. That would require getting a large percentage of gamers to agree on something that is very vague and subjective. It's hard enough to get a handful of them to agree on what the plain text of a rule book says.
What's your point? That you see no need in this discussion? So noted. Farewell, we'll continue without you.
Quote from: yosemitemike;914416I don't remember anything either but it has been a long time since I played either of those systems. Maybe someone could give five concrete examples of such rules?
I think you are right. We do need some concrete examples posted here. I just haven't had time.
QuoteThere will never be a hard definition of any of these terms. That would require getting a large percentage of gamers to agree on something that is very vague and subjective.
I think the point here is to get away from "vague and subjective." We're not talking about what people like, we're talking about what mechanics do - I think that can be done with a high degree of objectivity.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya
But I think most people are ignoring the history...
I get all of that, and assumed this was common knowledge (probably a bad assumption on my part). The term, RPG, was not scientifically constructed, it's just a name, for something new, that stuck. It stuck because its a natural fit and defines what you do in this sort of game well. Now, decades later, we have thousands of games, many with new, innovative and conflicting ideas, trying fit under the RPG umbrella - sometimes for nothing more than commercial reasons. I am all for inclusion of people, but the term doesn't handle the wide scope of games very well. It doesn't communicate the differences. The field has grown broader than the term.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914551Anytime someone creates something new, there isn't a name for it until someone makes one up. Forty years later and you'd have me believe there's no language we can use to define the difference between Amber and Fiasco? Between MERP and TOR? Between Marvel FASERIP and Marvel Heroic Roleplaying? Between OD&D and My Life With Master? Between AD&D and The Mountain Witch? Bullshit.
Good thing I'm not saying that then, isn't it?
What I AM saying is that we are creating, not discovering, a definition for these terms. There is not, and never has been, a Platonic ideal of "a game with these elements is a role playing game."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914625What I AM saying is that we are creating, not discovering, a definition for these terms.
I see what you are saying. On the other hand, the term, "storygame" is also a term that evolved somewhat naturally and has entered our vocabulary. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what is it, and how is it different? In any case, I think there is more than one way to approach a definition of something new.
QuoteThere is not, and never has been, a Platonic ideal of "a game with these elements is a role playing game."
"Good thing I'm not saying that then, isn't it?"
I thought earlier in this thread that we had all pretty well agreed that there was a spectrum, and that no game was a pure form of [insert label here]. Hopefully we don't have to go over the same ground again.
My point is that we have to define the terms FIRST. They aren't pre existing terms. Dungeon World plays differently from OD&D, no doubt. But we have to realize we are attempting to agree on a definition; there has been a lot of "It has this and that therefore it is a roleplaying game" (not necessarily from you). There is no rigid taxonomy, and first we need to agree that we are trying to create one. {insert label here} is only useful after defining {label}.
The problem is this cant be solved. Why? Because anyone can come along and slap RPG, or Storygame, or whatever on their game if they think they can get more sales.
Games Workshop did it with Space Hulk. Right on the box front. Others have done simmilar because their definition of RPG is... "the units have stats" No. Im not joking. A recent one was "Well the spaceship has stats. So its an RPG!"
Yes, it's true anybody can use "RPG" or "storygame" just by using it, and that there is no objective definition. That is indeed the point I've been trying to make.
But on the other hand, we CAN derive a definition that we can agree is useful for our purposes, and would very much like to see that happen. But my gut feeling is that it's still rather vague and I'm not sure what to do about it. I've seen people play OD&D with an emphasis on "building a good story." But that doesn't make OD&D a story game, because they were adding their own emphasis to the game. Beyond that it starts to get conceptually fuzzy to me.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914726Beyond that it starts to get conceptually fuzzy to me.
Have another beer. I find a beer always helps my conceptual fuzziness.
Well, we kind of have two different axes of definition. One based on mechanics, one based on player motivation or goal. Does Storygame lie at the intersection of these axes?
For Example - A Storygame is a game the primary purpose of which is to create a collaborative story and that contains OOC gaming mechanics designed to determine under what conditions and restrictions and to what extent, the player may create the story.
Okay, I'm listening. I'd be willing to help craft a workable definition.
I'm a big proponent of "TALK FIRST." But if you're both using the same word but different meanings in your head, it doesn't help.
Do we have to start with making a definition for RPG? That's a serious question. And how does an RPG differ from a low level skirmish wargame? There were PLENTY of wargames where you played one figure long before the first Braunstein. My suggestion for a possible difference between a skirmish wargame and an RPG is that in an RPG you can do things besides fight battles.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914817Well, we kind of have two different axes of definition. One based on mechanics, one based on player motivation or goal. Does Storygame lie at the intersection of these axes?
For Example - A Storygame is a game the primary purpose of which is to create a collaborative story and that contains OOC gaming mechanics designed to determine under what conditions and restrictions and to what extent, the player may create the story.
I don't think so. I think we should stick to the mechanical definitions and leave player goals and other subjective pillow fluff out. I am not sure here why you have had a change of heart. Anyway, I think we need to start looking at concrete examples of specific rules that "seem" story gamey and maybe we can uncover the common elements. I've been meaning to do exactly that, but it's just a very busy phase in real life at the moment.
Part of the problem, I think, is something I alluded to earlier in the discussion. While OOC mechanics are pretty clearly storygame mechanics (though I think we need some specific examples to show it), I don't think the original definition is quite broad enough because some mechanics that feel storygamey are IC, but redefine the role of the GM rather than the player. DungeonWorld does this, 2d20 does it (sort of) and FATE can do it.
Here is an example from up thread:
QuoteSpout Lore
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it's on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you "How do you know this?" Tell them the truth, now.
I think this is an example of a story game mechanic that is still IC from a players perspective (or can be), but it tells the GM that he must, when the player decides to "Spout Lore," define some element of the game that was perhaps neither "interesting or useful." If for example, said character examines a rusty old sword he took off an enemy and decides to "spout lore" about it, then the GM needs to say something "interesting and useful" about it, even if it is nothing but an old rusty sword. He doesn't have the option to say (according to the rule) that it is neither interesting nor useful or that it's nothing but a rusty old blade.
With this rule, the PC is defining the world by forcing the GM to act in certain way and define the world when and where the player wants it defined, even though the player is still IC while doing so. He is in effect saying "this sword is important to our game - tell me how." The player is still IC because he is acting out his character's defined abilities within the milieu. It is the GM's role that is compromised. It is an IC/storygame mechanic... I think.
Of course when we get to the last line of the rule - "
The GM might ask you "How do you know this?" Tell them the truth, now" - It is saying that the GM has permission to, and perhaps should, ask the player to don the GM hat and make up some OoC stuff about how his character would know this stuff. This specific portion of this specific rule is more straight-forward player OoC, though it is at GM discretion to allow it.
I am getting way ahead of myself because I think we should start by analyzing "hero points," and their many incarnations, as well as other common "story mechanics" before we jump into trickier rules. But I thought it important to mention, somewhat concretely, that player OoC mechanics are not the only storygame, non-RPG (for lack of a better term) mechanics. They can also come from rules that allow players to force the GM into action (or inaction) that modifies the campaign world in ways he never intended. The rules that invite players to invade a GM's zone of control (ZOC), whether IC or OoC, are storygame mechanics - I would argue.
Thus I think we are on the right track by sticking to mechanics in defining games. We just haven't arrived at the whole solution.
Of course I need to continually emphasize that I am not passing judgement on such rules as good or badwrongfun, just showing how they are different.
-----
OK this post is getting long...
I'll try to get the ball rolling with examining mechanics. So let's look at "hero points," and some of the ways that they are used in modern games.
Re-roll or auto successes (when character fails a skill or some ability)
Bonus to roll (Like FATE aspects, or SW bennies - mechanically I think these are very similar to re-rolls)
Reduce damage (when a character takes damage)
Left for dead (when the dice say the character is dead but the player doesn't like it)
Narrative point (when the player can make up some minor detail about the world)
I am sure there are others.
The Narrative point is pretty straight forward OOC. A Character in a bar fight spends a point and the player says "the barkeep keeps a shotgun behind the bar. I'm going to grab it." The player is OoC, donning the GM hat, and altering the GM's domain - the imaginary campaign world.
But the other uses of hero points are less clear. I'll take a stab at analyzing hero point's used for re-rolls:
A hero point used as a re-roll can be IC and do nothing to usurp the GM's ZOC. If the character is defined as "lucky," then the re-roll is part of his character. It's IC. Or if he is defined as a "brilliant swordsman" and he re-rolls his sword attack with a hero point, then he hasn't broken character or invaded GM ZOC. As far as I can see, such examples are legit RPG mechanics. Furthermore, if all PCs get "hero points" for re-rolls because the GM has defined the genre/game as "heroic" "cinematic" or "epic" then that still seems pretty kosher. The points represent something that exists in the shared world that heroes have power over.
If however, the game is defined by the GM as normal or human powered game, and players have bennies to spend on whatever they want, we start to creep into the range of OoC play and ZOC invasion, and the game gets a little schizophrenic. For example, a character who is defined as a poor swordsman, but who blows all his hero points swinging a blade thus winning important duels that he probably shouldn't have, then he is perhaps stretching IC credibility
and the GMs control over the world, perhaps forcing him to explain something that doesn't make sense in his world, or modify his initial vision to fit the events that the character has altered by mechanical means.
The above is not a very methodical analysis (I'm tired and a little drunk), but it is at least pretty clear that hero points used for re-rolls can be non-invasive, IC, RPG mechanics if they are allowed within the definitions of the characters and gaming world. They can also lean heavily towards storygame if the player has a great deal of say in how they are used and if they are not tied specifically to some aspect of the character or the world/genre. It will likely take more than hero point re-rolls to redefine a game as a storygame, but the analysis would be more useful if it was done in the context of a specific rule from a specific game.
------
Anyway, I think we are on track by looking at mechanics as the means of defining games. We just need to get into the nitty-gritty of specific analysis if we are going to make any real headway.
I don't think it's the type of effect, but why those effects get applied, that make the difference.
In a trad RPG, you could have:
Re-roll or auto successes (to represent especially unlikely things, or redundancy, or overwhelming odds, or trivial things)
Bonus to roll (for in-game-world reasons - your Star Wars example is a grey area, if using The Force is a thing)
Reduce damage (for armor, due to countermeasures, and other in-game-world reasons)
Left for dead (when it's not obvious to characters if someone is dead or just not moving/fighting)
Narrative point (when things are outside scope of play, such as PC backgrounds or most GM world/adventure creation)
So it seems to me it's not the type of element, but the way the players are causing things to happen with no explanation in-game-world, just because they want to, it seems cool, or out of a desire to intentionally cause some type of story. All of which can happen in trad RPGs, but the focus is on play that doesn't do that. In story games, the focus, or sometimes even ALL of the "play" is for the purpose of making a story how you want, with little or sometimes no "interference" from the established game world situation, rules for how things do or don't work, logic, etc.
Quote from: thuha123;915498Let's see, if it triggers the Outraged Anti-Outrage Brigade Brigade then it's probably a Storygame
You made an account for that?
(http://www.speakgif.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/well-bye-animated-gif.gif)
Back from the sea and catching up.
Quote from: CRKrueger;914817Well, we kind of have two different axes of definition. One based on mechanics, one based on player motivation or goal. Does Storygame lie at the intersection of these axes?
For Example - A Storygame is a game the primary purpose of which is to create a collaborative story and that contains OOC gaming mechanics designed to determine under what conditions and restrictions and to what extent, the player may create the story.
So, we are back to the "goal" component being significant? I think we achieved something then.
We have these two axes, ok. Let us describe the two options possible when the goal of the game is to purposefully create a collaborative story.
a. Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell, and which contains OOC gaming mechanics for this purpose. This is a Storygame, we all agree, although maybe not all storygames fall into this category.
b. Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell, and which contains only IC gaming mechanics for this purpose.
Now, does anyone have a good example of b) ?
I never understood the idea of aiming for a game as a story to be retold later. Do people really play games with this goal?
I am concerned about the DIRECT EXPERIENCE of gameplay, not some hypothetical retelling. But I still want a game to function effectively on a narrative level.
So, for instance, chess is a game that is fine, obviously, on a gameplay level, but if you go into it expecting to experience a compelling tale of warring armies, you're likely to be disappointed.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;916754So, we are back to the "goal" component being significant? I think we achieved something then.
We have these two axes, ok. Let us describe the two options possible when the goal of the game is to purposefully create a collaborative story.
a. Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell, and which contains OOC gaming mechanics for this purpose. This is a Storygame, we all agree, although maybe not all storygames fall into this category.
b. Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell, and which contains only IC gaming mechanics for this purpose.
Now, does anyone have a good example of b) ?
Well, don't know if it's a valid charge, but isn't that essentially the charge that Ron Edwards leveled at the Storyteller System? That the supposed stated purpose of the game was to tell stories of personal horror, but that there were no mechanics designed for this purpose?
Even though I have come around to the idea of goals being valid, we run right into a sticky wicket where a game does not identify as a Storygame, yet contains OOC mechanics the purpose of which obviously grant narrative control over the setting or the characters even though the goal is ostensibly "roleplaying". Which is where the fuzziness of goals comes in, as many people's definition of "roleplaying" is to "roleplay" at least partially from the 3rd person, telling a story about their character, at least as much as they roleplay from the POV of the character. Thus their actual goal is not their stated goal.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;916754b. Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell, and which contains only IC gaming mechanics for this purpose.
Now, does anyone have a good example of b) ?
I don't know if that is a good example, but I've seen that done by people using an ordinary RPG where they choose to ignore the rules, change the setting or difficulty level on the fly, and over ride die rolls in quest of "a better story."
Quote from: Manzanaro;916768I never understood the idea of aiming for a game as a story to be retold later. Do people really play games with this goal?
"To be retold later" is a detail that you added. We did not include it in the definition. Even in a Story Now! game, the emphasis is on
living the story as it is told, not in obtaining a good transcript that you can archive later. "Playing for the story" only means that what you are experiencing must revolve around a theme, not random events. It does not imply you will re-elaborate later. On the contrary, Ron Edwards calls this "Story After" and considers it un-fun. I hope the point is clearer now.
Quote from: CRKrueger;916775Well, don't know if it's a valid charge, but isn't that essentially the charge that Ron Edwards leveled at the Storyteller System? That the supposed stated purpose of the game was to tell stories of personal horror, but that there were no mechanics designed for this purpose?
Quote from: Bren;916785I don't know if that is a good example, but I've seen that done by people using an ordinary RPG where they choose to ignore the rules, change the setting or difficulty level on the fly, and over ride die rolls in quest of "a better story."
Both these examples imply the absence of mechanics, not the presence of in-character mechanics only. The goal is there, but there is nothing but the players' desires to support its achievement. I would not call this "game mechanics".
Quote from: RosenMcStern;916923Both these examples imply the absence of mechanics, not the presence of in-character mechanics only. The goal is there, but there is nothing but the players' desires to support its achievement. I would not call this "game mechanics".
Good point.
Then restrict the choice of games to a genre based game where the IC rules support mimicking a genre, but all the ones that I am aware of have some more-or-less out of character mechanics like Hero Points. The original Mayfair Games James Bond 007 would be an example.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;916754Back from the sea and catching up.
Glad the deep ones didn't get you.
Quoteb. Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell, and which contains only IC gaming mechanics for this purpose.
Now, does anyone have a good example of b) ?
I am still not convinced that the goal of the group is a valid component of evaluating what a game does as written. It seems pretty clear to me that these two axes are on very different planes of existence. I am open and trying to learn how people are arriving at this conclusion.
To answer your question, I'll throw out Pendragon as an IC game for which the primary purpose of some mechanics is to reinforce "the type of story the players would like to tell." An argument could be made that the personality and passion mechanics are OoC, but my instinct from play experience says they are not. A difference is perhaps that the "type of story," in Pendragon, is already determined by the game. The players must buy into that type of story from the get go.
Quote from: Bren;916943Then restrict the choice of games to a genre based game where the IC rules support mimicking a genre, but all the ones that I am aware of have some more-or-less out of character mechanics like Hero Points. The original Mayfair Games James Bond 007 would be an example.
Quote from: Madprofessor;916950To answer your question, I'll throw out Pendragon as an IC game for which the primary purpose of some mechanics is to reinforce "the type of story the players would like to tell." An argument could be made that the personality and passion mechanics are OoC, but my instinct from play experience says they are not. A difference is perhaps that the "type of story," in Pendragon, is already determined by the game. The players must buy into that type of story from the get go.
Bingo!
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.
Rose, you say things like, "Game the primary purpose of which is to create a story of the kind the players would like to tell," whereas their liking to tell (retell) it doesn't enter my mind.
Nor do I believe that stories have to revolve around theme. I didn't believe it when my 6th grade English teacher said it, and I didn't believe it when Ron Edwards said it. In particular, I sure don't believe that a narrative, as opposed to a traditional "story" (which is not what even a story game is) needs to revolve around theme.
Then you start talking about "Story now" and all that crap?
If you are going to accept Edwards' thoughts as foundational, I can't see how you are going to do any more here than rehash his mistakes.
Manzanaro, I have exactly ZERO blind faith in Ron Edwards's theories. And exactly ZERO prejudice against them.
I do not take any part of the Forge theory as "foundational". However, I do not consider any of it "wrong by definition", either. It is a contribution to game theory like any other. And unfortunately there are not many other contributions hanging around, at the moment.
I have zero problem in discussing with you when you do not found your reasoning from "theme" and other parts of Egri's theory. In fact, I prefer other approaches to literary theory, too :)
However, if you demand that I share your personal opinion that "Story now" is "crap" and that anything that Edwards said is "fallacy by definition" that will "lead me to mistake", then we have nothing to debate, neither here nor anywhere else. Because I will be forced to consider that yours are not opionions, but prejudices. And it is not the same.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;916958There are probably very few of these games.
I 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.
QuoteNote also that 99% of Forge contributors recognize Pendragon as "coherent design". KAP is "storygame friendly". Not a coincidence.
But 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.
QuoteAlso, 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.
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.
QuoteSo 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.
What 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.
QuoteThe 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.
(1) Why does it matter what storygamers call stuff? (2) was the introduction of the phrase ante litteram really necessary? Because it seems designed to limit the audience for discussion not to open it.
QuoteI affirm that the possibility that the most precise definition of StoryGame is the one based solely on the "goal" is still on the table.
Whereas that still seems to be dependent on each individual table and campaign at that table, sometimes even a session, of a campaign, of that table. Answers to very specific and idiosyncratic questions are always going to be unique and in this case, often vague. For categorization of what is or isn't a storygame, "goal" still seems to be a useless diversion.
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. :D
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". :D
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.
I really truly hope I'm not pissing in the pool here, but...
What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."
Am I an outlier, or irrelevant, or just saying the same thing a different way and not realizing it?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918251I really truly hope I'm not pissing in the pool here, but...
What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."
Am I an outlier, or irrelevant, or just saying the same thing a different way and not realizing it?
No, I think that's a perfectly valid outlook. Pendragon is what I would call a "Genre Roleplaying Game". It's got all the standard roleplaying mechanics, except it also has some rules and mechanics to, as you said "make the world work a certain way". However, if you are keeping an eye towards genre, you're not doing it as the character, but as the player, so I think Genre Mechanics count as OOC, but they aren't there necessarily for storytelling purposes.
I see these as being similar but three different things...
- Roleplaying inside the world of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character.
- MERP
- Mongoose, TSR, GURPS Conan
- Keltia
- Mythic Britain
- Roleplaying inside the stories of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character, with an eye towards genre conventions of that fiction.
- The One Ring
- Modiphius Conan
- King Arthur Pendragon
- Roleplaying inside your own stories that you are making inside Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experiencing a character in your own version of that fiction.
- Not a big Storygamer, but I've seen a few of these floating around on the Intarwebz. Don't remember the names.
[/LIST]
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918251I really truly hope I'm not pissing in the pool here, but...
What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."
Am I an outlier, or irrelevant, or just saying the same thing a different way and not realizing it?
Well iv been only 1/2 assed paying attention to this thread but to my way of thinking id say yes you are on to something here.
That is to say yes i think there is a difference in wanting to experiencing a certain world feel and not be interested in telling a story persay.
For example I personally have a want for a game system that would capture the feel of a tales game and one that would capture the feel of megami tensei franchise but im not interested in recreating the storys from those games so id say yes this is different.
Quote from: CRKrueger;918199so 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.
I disagree. I have played storygames where we could "feel" the characters as vividly as in any classic rpg. It is just an experience "from the outside" rather than "from the inside", but there is no inferior involvement.
QuoteThose 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". :D
There is no negativity in that definition of "illusion". Whether you play with intra-diagetic rules or with extra-diagetic ones, when you roleplay
your are deluding yourself about being a real someone else (or about telling a story about a real someone else). So, saying that you need to maintain an "illusion" is saying the obvious.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;918251What of those of us who play PENDRAGON not "to create a certain story" but "to experience a certain environment?" I love Le Morte d'Arthur. But I'm not as interested in "telling a certain story" as "experiencing a world that works a certain way."
I am not really sure that your approach is non-canonical here. Depending on the exact meaning of your words, I think that you might still be playing the game in the way Greg originally intended it. "Exploration of worlds" is not the same as genre emulation, but the difference is not huge. KAP is a Right to Dream game, so exploring and experiencing the world is still quite a big thing in it. Certanly much more than you would have in, say, DitV or Polaris.
Quote from: CRKrueger;918258- Roleplaying inside the world of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character.
- MERP
- Mongoose, TSR, GURPS Conan
- Keltia
- Mythic Britain
- Roleplaying inside the stories of Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experience that setting through roleplaying a character, with an eye towards genre conventions of that fiction.
- The One Ring
- Modiphius Conan
- King Arthur Pendragon
- Roleplaying inside your own stories that you are making inside Conan/Middle-Earth/King Arthur - experiencing a character in your own version of that fiction.
- Not a big Storygamer, but I've seen a few of these floating around on the Intarwebz. Don't remember the names.
[/LIST]
Sounds like a correct classification. But we are still back to the point: it sounds more a taxonomy of goals than it is of mechanics.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;918314I disagree. I have played storygames where we could "feel" the characters as vividly as in any classic rpg. It is just an experience "from the outside" rather than "from the inside", but there is no inferior involvement.
But, "from the outside" is not the same as "from the inside". Forget about inferior/superior, they are simply two different things.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;918314Sounds like a correct classification. But we are still back to the point: it sounds more a taxonomy of goals than it is of mechanics.
Agreed, Geezer and Kosmos brought us back around to the intersection of game and goals, but...the definition of the game itself has to include how the mechanics can either enable or hinder those goals...or simply be indifferent.