TheRPGSite

Hey all!

I'm new here - coming over from rpg.net - of course often the first thing one does before registering/posting in a new forum is to spend a bit of time scouting out the place, getting a first impression of the culture and whatnot.

So - it appears that there is a Thing with regards to the whole "storytelling" vs "roleplaying" games here.

I hesitate to say something along the lines of "I come in peace" or "I am not trolling" - because that's the first thing any troll is going to say, right?  Anyhow, please regard this post a pure curiousity regarding your perspective.

So, as far as I've been able to make out, at least one significant reason for putting "story-games" into the big bucket of 'other games' (card games, dice games, video games, board games... and.... storygame rpgs) is that a major differentiator  in your opinion seems to be one of 'immersion'.  By all means, please correct me if I'm way off.

I come from a background of "traditional rpgs" and I've always had two major preferences:

#1:  historically, I've always had huge bias for 'simulationist'/'physics-based' mechanics/rules engines.

#2: historically, and currently, I've always had huge bias for 3rd-person perspective when describing my character's actions.


Now, I know that it is entirely possible to play traditional simulationist rpg's in 3rd-person perspective, and that by doing so, the game doesn't suddenly somehow become a "story-game". I say that I know this, because that has been my experience.

Looking at some of the debates here surrounding the whole "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" categorization, it seems that a major element of "storygames" is that they entail a level of Out of Character perspective.  

3rd-person descriptions similarly entail a level of Out of Character perspective.

Thus would you say that a table of people playing AD&D 1st edition or Twilight 2000 entirely in 3rd-person, have crossed a line into "storygame" territory?

Or is this nuance of 3rd-person RP vs. 1st-person RP not really relevant in any real significant way to the nuance of "story-gaming" vs. "roleplay gaming"?


Cheers, and thanks!

Not really relevant, IMO. Then again, the whole "war" between story games and trad games is not really relevant to me, so take this with a grain of salt.

-clash

Quote from: double8infinity8;715248So - it appears that there is a Thing with regards to the whole "storytelling" vs "roleplaying" games here.

VERY simple.  A STORY is something that is already done.  Or, majorly done and some blanks need to be filled in.  As one can role play while following a script, that isn't the differentiator.

Traditionally, P&P RPG's have NOT been about telling stories but about RPing a character while interacting with a make believe environment.  NOT, telling a pre made story.

Quote from: flyingmice;715252Not really relevant, IMO. Then again, the whole "war" between story games and trad games is not really relevant to me, so take this with a grain of salt.

-clash

Thanks Clash - I'm trying to understand the "war" a little better, and I'd like to participate on this site. However, because I very much appreciate and enjoy _both_ "story rpgs" and "traditional rpgs" (so long as I'm "in" 3rd-person while playing) - and I see how for some reason "story games" are thrown in with _card_ and _video_ games - I'm worried that I'd somehow one day inadvertently set off the rath of some of the existing members here were I to miscategorize a game, or post in the 'wrong' forum, or something.

Reading through the DW thread, for example... I now know that I have to watch my language lest I set off Triggers.   I knew that I had to use the phrase "describing my character's actions" rather than "narrating my character's actions", for instance.

So I'm wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes, especially after seeing some posts regarding the importance of "immersion" and whatnot. I'm trying to get an idea about where the landmines are most densely located so that I can be sure to avoid them. ( rpg.net has me irritated with their moderation practices, so I'm seeking alternatives )


Cheers

Quote from: Arduin;715257VERY simple.  A STORY is something that is already done.  Or, majorly done and some blanks need to be filled in.  As one can role play while following a script, that isn't the differentiator.

Traditionally, P&P RPG's have NOT been about telling stories but about RPing a character while interacting with a make believe environment.  NOT, telling a pre made story.

I've played in a few Call of Cthulhu games where the GM definitely had a pre-made story that he was telling, like sort of a "interactive video game" sequence sort of thing. I've participated in other older games by other GM's which took the same basic approach. I didn't like those games. (EDIT: by 'games', I meant those specific sessions - not the rpg itself... I love CoC, and have had more than a few great games)

I'm participating in a Torchbearer game right now in a PbP, and there is no pre-planned story being told; me and the other two players are interacting with a make-believe environment that the GM is describing to us as we go.

I'm also participating in a face-to-face Pathfinder campaign, using one of the published modules.  I'm pretty much the only one who narrates/describes in 3rd-person, which is difficult when everyone else is in 1st-person, including the GM's NPC's - so I find that I start to go 1st-person because that's the flow at the table, but it runs contrary to how I prefer to play.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715261Thanks Clash - I'm trying to understand the "war" a little better, and I'd like to participate on this site. However, because I very much appreciate and enjoy _both_ "story rpgs" and "traditional rpgs" (so long as I'm "in" 3rd-person while playing) - and I see how for some reason "story games" are thrown in with _card_ and _video_ games - I'm worried that I'd somehow one day inadvertently set off the rath of some of the existing members here were I to miscategorize a game, or post in the 'wrong' forum, or something.

Reading through the DW thread, for example... I now know that I have to watch my language lest I set off Triggers.   I knew that I had to use the phrase "describing my character's actions" rather than "narrating my character's actions", for instance.

So I'm wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes, especially after seeing some posts regarding the importance of "immersion" and whatnot. I'm trying to get an idea about where the landmines are most densely located so that I can be sure to avoid them. ( rpg.net has me irritated with their moderation practices, so I'm seeking alternatives )


Cheers

Forget about avoiding landmines! They are there to be stepped on. :D

Luckily, you won't be banished for stepping on one. You'll just get an earfull from some guys who take that as their sacred duty. Grow a thick skin and shrug it off, or yell back. No one cares. :D

As for third person play, I have been playing since 1977, and I heard third person play more often than first person play in the beginning. That didn't change 'til well into the eighties. Hell, in the beginning, many DMs didn't bother with character names. You were Wizard or Elf or Dwarf or Fighter, and some used a "caller" who did all the talking for you.

So, don't worry about the third person thing at all, and only worry about landmines if you can't stand being yelled at. ;P

-clash

I am speaking about my actions as my character in the first person, and I encourage players at my game table to do the same. I find it conducive of the immersion into the game world I am looking for, and I prefer it when everyone's on the same page regarding these sorts of things.

That said, just as you can speak in the first person and immerse in the game world as your character, I believe you can speak in the third person and immerse in the game world as well, so I don't think of speaking in the first or third person out loud as an indicator, in and of itself, directly connected to the "playing the world" versus "building a story" divide.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715263I'm also participating in a face-to-face Pathfinder campaign, using one of the published modules.  I'm pretty much the only one who narrates/describes in 3rd-person, which is difficult when everyone else is in 1st-person, including the GM's NPC's - so I find that I start to go 1st-person because that's the flow at the table, but it runs contrary to how I prefer to play.

Well, role playing is by definition more of a 1st person activity.   Doing it 3rd person is not the norm but not rare either.  It isn't the defining point between Story Telling / P&P RPG play.

Cool - well I do appreciate a place where folks self-moderate or at least have reasonably thick skins. So cheers to that. (:

Reading Arduin's and Benoist's posts, I'm currently left with the following in my mind:

* 1st-person vs. 3rd-person isn't so much a significant qualifier in the "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" divide, however, "playing the world" versus "building a story" is  relatively significant?

I believe I saw some mention of that in some of these other larger threads here on the subject, but I admit: personally, I'm currently finding the distinction of "playing the world" vs. "building/telling a story" somewhat fuzzy.

Storygaming is just one type of 3rd-person gaming.  There might be many reasons why one is making decisions "out of character".  Story is only one.  Tactical game decisions might be another.  Social aspects might be a third (helping your RL friend even though your characters hardly know each other).  Genre awareness is a fourth.  There's lots.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715275* 1st-person vs. 3rd-person isn't so much a significant qualifier in the "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" divide, however, "playing the world" versus "building a story" is  relatively significant?

If you describe what you are doing during the day, are you building a story?  No, you are simply describing what you are doing while doing it. (P&P RPG game)  

What happens to you MAY, at a later time, be told as a story.  You may even publish it and assign people to play various roles in that story (with wiggle room to act in various ways) and thus, play a Story Telling game.

Doesn't get much simpler than that.  ;)

The type of game is largely if not completely determined by the objectives of play.

Question 1: What (beyond having fun) is the object of playing the game?

Is it to explore a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting?

Is it to create shared fiction with the other participants?

That, beyond the minutae of mechanics, is where the answer lies. Some mechanics or elements of play will push the game harder in one direction or the other. Many disagree on the precise tipping point.

A straight up honest answer to question 1 usually settles the issue.

As a preference, I generally prefer a 1st person approach while both playing and while portraying an npc when running the game. Attempts at acting or doing accents/voices are purely optional and I don't see such things as a requirement to roleplay.

Another angle, I'm not quite sure how to explain it - so forgive my clumsy attempt:

I think that when it comes down to it... that I just tend to not like roleplaying in the technical definition of the term vs. "roleplaying" as the term generally applies to our hobby (as I understand it at least).

To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world; and that some people  prefer to do that storytelling "in character" (1st-person), and some people prefer to do that storytelling "out of character" (3rd-person).

For instance: I absolutely suck at acting... thus I suck at 'roleplaying' as per the technical (non-game) definition of the term.  I suck at acting so much, that I don't even like doing it.  But I do like using a set of rules by which to have characters progress their skills, and achieve or fail at goals, and to end up with cool stories one way or another. But acting out a part? Hell no, I just don't do that very well.  But yet I've played all kinds of great campaigns and sessions: CoC, Talislanta, MERP, *D&D, some Rifts, etc.

For instance, I cringe a little whenever I read the "what's an rpg" portion of some games, where the commentary talks about "you" being someone other than yourself.  I don't want to be someone else while I play, I want to be me, who happens to be using a Character much like a playing-piece in a boardgame.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world;

 "Storytelling" is a very recent phenomenon in the RPG genre.  Unheard of really until recently.  (see examples of play in ALL D&D PHB's & DMG's since the beginning of time to see that it isn't "storytelling")

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284Another angle, I'm not quite sure how to explain it - so forgive my clumsy attempt:

I think that when it comes down to it... that I just tend to not like roleplaying in the technical definition of the term vs. "roleplaying" as the term generally applies to our hobby (as I understand it at least).

To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world; and that some people  prefer to do that storytelling "in character" (1st-person), and some people prefer to do that storytelling "out of character" (3rd-person).

For instance: I absolutely suck at acting... thus I suck at 'roleplaying' as per the technical (non-game) definition of the term.  I suck at acting so much, that I don't even like doing it.  But I do like using a set of rules by which to have characters progress their skills, and achieve or fail at goals, and to end up with cool stories one way or another. But acting out a part? Hell no, I just don't do that very well.  But yet I've played all kinds of great campaigns and sessions: CoC, Talislanta, MERP, *D&D, some Rifts, etc.

For instance, I cringe a little whenever I read the "what's an rpg" portion of some games, where the commentary talks about "you" being someone other than yourself.  I don't want to be someone else while I play, I want to be me, who happens to be using a Character much like a playing-piece in a boardgame.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

It makes perfect sense.  I think there are a lot of people who have always played that way, and for them, that is roleplaying.  Since, for you, roleplaying has always meant a third-person, out of character, almost authorial view of things, then the difference between a traditional rpg and a narrative one probably means very little to you, because every rpg you play, you play in a narrative way.

You never immerse in the character per se, but in what's happening to the character, as you call it, the "story".  It's like watching a movie, where you decide what Han Solo does, but you're not Han Solo.

A traditional RPG, that can support multiple playstyles can easily handle a first-person perspective or a third-person perspective.  The issue that mainly comes up here is when a new-style game that to some degree forces a third-person perspective thus makes it impossible to stay in first-person perspective and then gets caught in the crossfire between the different sides of "what is roleplaying" debate.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715282The type of game is largely if not completely determined by the objectives of play.

Question 1: What (beyond having fun) is the object of playing the game?

Is it to explore a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting?

Is it to create shared fiction with the other participants?

This may be my primary point of contention.  From my perspective (I've been playing since about 1987 or so), roleplaying games - as I have experienced and understood them - have always been about both of those two objectives you listed above.  And even if the mechanics and/or commentary/advice lean more heavily on one or the other, that they are both inextricably interwined:

* When exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting, the group will be creating shared fiction with the other participants.... and while creating shared fiction with the other participants, the group will be exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284I think that when it comes down to it... that I just tend to not like roleplaying in the technical definition of the term vs. "roleplaying" as the term generally applies to our hobby (as I understand it at least).

Roleplaying is different from acting. You can completely be yourself while roleplaying. Have you ever participated in a fire drill exercise? If so then you were roleplaying yourself in the fictional situation of a fire emergency.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284To me "roleplaying" games very much have always consisted in people telling a story through the actions of characters in a fictitious world; and that some people  prefer to do that storytelling "in character" (1st-person), and some people prefer to do that storytelling "out of character" (3rd-person).

Roleplaying and storytelling are not the same activity. One can assume a role for a number of reasons, none of which need involve creating fiction or telling a story.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284For instance: I absolutely suck at acting... thus I suck at 'roleplaying' as per the technical (non-game) definition of the term.  I suck at acting so much, that I don't even like doing it.  But I do like using a set of rules by which to have characters progress their skills, and achieve or fail at goals, and to end up with cool stories one way or another. But acting out a part? Hell no, I just don't do that very well.  But yet I've played all kinds of great campaigns and sessions: CoC, Talislanta, MERP, *D&D, some Rifts, etc.

Good news!!  There is no acting skill required in roleplaying. Just react to the imagined situation as if it were happening. Adopting a persona or mannerisms other than your own is optional to the core activity.
 

Quote from: double8infinity8;715284For instance, I cringe a little whenever I read the "what's an rpg" portion of some games, where the commentary talks about "you" being someone other than yourself.  I don't want to be someone else while I play, I want to be me, who happens to be using a Character much like a playing-piece in a boardgame.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

You can always play yourself as character X. Many of us end up doing that to one degree or another anyhow. The only reason to adopt a different persona would be personal desire, in case you found it to be fun.

In any event, if you answer question 1 honestly then you know what type of game you are playing regardless of system. People used (and still use) regular rpgs to play shared narrative games. There didn't used to be many other options.

By the way - I'm appreciating this dialog, thanks for the time and effort; I know it's probably just another re-hash of what's happened time-and-time again here and on various other forums; but it's a new discussion for me!  (:  

I'm not at all interested in being "right", but I'm very interested in trying to better understand the mindset.  For instance, I like being able to say "here is why this camp thinks of things in this way, and why this other camp thinks of things in this other way" - but only if I can do so in a reasonably accurate way.


Cheers

Quote from: double8infinity8;715290* When exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting, the group will be creating shared fiction with the other participants.... and while creating shared fiction with the other participants, the group will be exploring a fictional setting roleplaying an inhabitant of that setting.

This is why purpose of play is so important.

Exploring a fictional setting = there is no fiction, as far as your character is concerned. You are just living your life. There is no meta or narrative control to be exercised as there is no narrative. An inhabitant of a setting lives in it. He/she does not go about life for the purpose of creating fiction out of it any more than you do in your own everyday life.

Creating shared fiction= you are part of an ongoing story telling the tale from your character's perspective. The point of the game is to tell that story. As a collaborator, you will want some control over the fiction. Narrative mechanics provide this for you helping you tell the story you want to tell.

That is the difference.

Then I should bow out, as I'm not in any camp. I just wander where I find interesting people and things to talk about. :D

-clash

3rd person Roleplaying vs 1st Person Roleplaying has little effect on the Storygame vs RPG issue.

The main downfall of storygames is that they allow players do (and forced to consider) things that their characters can't. In a traditional tabletop RPG you are limited to what your character can do period.

It has no bearing whether you continually act out your character in 1st person or dispassionately describe the character actions as a third party.

Hi Exploderwizard, thanks for the input!  

However, with your post quoted below, I fear the subject might possibly drift to a slightly different area - unless I've merely misinterpreted the gist.

To try and point out what I'm talking about, I'll just present two bullet points:

* I am aware that not all games require/expect that each participant play a role other than themself. Outbreak: Undead, and TimeLords for instance, are examples of rpg's that even provide means of "playing yourself" as a Character. THis particular point I think is a technicality; I would rather train focus on the more prevelant and traditional style and expectation in which a Character is 'not-you' and wherein 'immersion' involves, amongst other things, describing one's Character's actions as though one were the Character, who has a different personality and perspective than oneself.

* With regards to roleplaying and story-telling as being separate activities - they certainly are in their none-game form... but I disagree that "traditional RPGs" and "storytelling RPGs" are separate activities in the same way that the standard definitions of roleplaying and story-telling are activities of a very different nature.  Kids roleplaying in a firedrill at school, and a teacher telling a story to kids in a class are certainly very different activities.  But I am having a very difficult time seeing how engagement in a "traditional" RPG and engagement in a "storytelling" RPG are categorically separate activities of an clear and obvious difference, aside from some fuzzy nuances in abstract conceptual approach.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715293Roleplaying is different from acting. You can completely be yourself while roleplaying. Have you ever participated in a fire drill exercise? If so then you were roleplaying yourself in the fictional situation of a fire emergency.



Roleplaying and storytelling are not the same activity. One can assume a role for a number of reasons, none of which need involve creating fiction or telling a story.



Good news!!  There is no acting skill required in roleplaying. Just react to the imagined situation as if it were happening. Adopting a persona or mannerisms other than your own is optional to the core activity.
 


You can always play yourself as character X. Many of us end up doing that to one degree or another anyhow. The only reason to adopt a different persona would be personal desire, in case you found it to be fun.

In any event, if you answer question 1 honestly then you know what type of game you are playing regardless of system. People used (and still use) regular rpgs to play shared narrative games. There didn't used to be many other options.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715261I'm trying to get an idea about where the landmines are most densely located so that I can be sure to avoid them.

No, you aren't. You're trying your hardest to jump up and down on them.

Quote from: estar;7153033rd person Roleplaying vs 1st Person Roleplaying has little effect on the Storygame vs RPG issue.

The main downfall of storygames is that they allow players do (and forced to consider) things that their characters can't. In a traditional tabletop RPG you are limited to what your character can do period.

It has no bearing whether you continually act out your character in 1st person or dispassionately describe the character actions as a third party.

This makes more sense to me, as far as a means of a differentiator goes. I'm still stumped as to how this slight change of perspective makes "storygaming" (Burning Wheel, FATE(?), Dogs in the Vineyard) an entirely different activity than "traditional roleplaying" (D&D, Shadowrun, CoC, etc.).  Or why "storygames" are lumped in with card games, board games and video games here on this board. ( It would be different if "traditional" RPGs and "storygame" RPGs had their own forums, in addition to a third 'Other Games'; then that would make immediate sense to me )

( though, I do not dispassionately describe my character's actions unless the game is really sucking )

I would point out that you should take what Arduin says with a huge grain of salt. He keeps describing railroads (players playing a part in a premade story that they have little influence over) which is completely irrelevant to the storygame/rpg divide.

(Hell, some might say that storygames were an attempted counter to railroading GMs, and there is a good bit of evidence to that effect).

Disclaimer: This post is not for or against storygames or RPGs, just posting for terminology clarification.

Quote from: The Traveller;715306No, you aren't. You're trying your hardest to jump up and down on them.

Fuck you.  Are you suggesting that I jump up and down harder? Because apparently I haven't hit any landmines until you decided to tell me what I'm doing.

Your omniscience needs adjustment or fine-tuning or something, because it's way out of order.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715311Fuck you.  Are you suggesting that I jump up and down harder? Because apparently I haven't hit any landmines until you decided to tell me what I'm doing.

Your omniscience needs adjustment or fine-tuning or something, because it's way out of order.

Whatever, it's no skin off my nose. At least this thread will serve as a useful education for anyone who might actually be pondering these matters.

Carry on.

Quote from: flyingmice;715299Then I should bow out, as I'm not in any camp. I just wander where I find interesting people and things to talk about. :D

-clash

I'm in the "I like rpgs and their mechanics and conventions" camp.   (:

I'm also in the "Am I missing something?" camp, concerning the social divide in our hobby wrt "storygame" and "traditional" RPGs.  

Anyhow, sorry if my 'camps' reference chased you off; I didn't mean it that way.



Cheers

Quote from: double8infinity8;715307This makes more sense to me, as far as a means of a differentiator goes. I'm still stumped as to how this slight change of perspective makes "storygaming" (Burning Wheel, FATE(?), Dogs in the Vineyard) an entirely different activity than "traditional roleplaying" (D&D, Shadowrun, CoC, etc.).  Or why "storygames" are lumped in with card games, board games and video games here on this board. ( It would be different if "traditional" RPGs and "storygame" RPGs had there own forums, in addition to a third 'Other Games'; then that would make immediate sense to me )

( though, I do not dispassionately describe my character's actions unless the game is really sucking )

This site was set up to talk about Traditional, ie. not narrative RPGs or Storygames.  As a result, anything else is "Other".  Who decides? The site owner.  If it seems incorrect, you're free to argue or insult him as you see fit, unlike other sites.

BTW, this site frequently sees new users pop up with "innocent" questions, who really are here either trolling for quotes for Something Awful's grognards.txt or are trying to proselytize to the savages about the wonders of shared narration, or have some other agenda that soon becomes readily apparent.  

You want to talk story here, people are gonna question your motives and you're gonna take fire.  Hell, you talk about anything here, you might take fire.  If you can suck it up, not get offended and fire back if you feel like it, you'll fit right in.

Every few months we have a knockdown dragout on the topic anyway.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715304But I am having a very difficult time seeing how engagement in a "traditional" RPG and engagement in a "storytelling" RPG are categorically separate activities of an clear and obvious difference, aside from some fuzzy nuances in abstract conceptual approach.

In roleplaying you are limited to what your character can do.

In storytelling you can make anything up including new characters, new locations, new stuff at any time for any reason.

People bring the Amber RPG a lot which involves character creating entire new universes. But in Amber that is an ability of the character and as godlike Amber characters appear they still have limitations the players are bound by them.

In storygames the focus shifts to the PLAYERS collaboratively working together to create a story through various mechanics. This may involve a players playing a individual character. But it differs in that the PLAYER is considering and doing things in the game but outside of what the CHARACTER can do or consider within the setting.

This is is the essential difference between the two.

Also I will point out that there is no clear cut line in terms of mechanics alone. You have to look at what the focus is on to figure out whether it is a storygame or a traditional roleplaying. It is a similar thing to the difference between a wargame and traditional roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;715322This site was set up to talk about Traditional, ie. not narrative RPGs or Storygames.  As a result, anything else is "Other".

Hahah - that fully answers my question wrt how the site is organized! Hell if I saw that somewhere when I registered, I would have had somewhat less confusion! (:

 I hadn't thought of it in that light, but that makes clear-enough sense: "Other" is everything  that isn't the primary purpose/topic/subject of the site, in this case "storygame" RPGs are not considered a primary subject on these forums. Works for me.

QuoteWho decides? The site owner.

I totally respect that the site owner can set things up anyway he please - I'm cool with that. I'm a curious sort though, and I like to categorize shit; so I was surprised and interested at seeing category-Y RPGs having a dedicated forum, while category-X RPGs being lumped in with the kitchen sink.


My question(s) concerning 1st-person immersion vs. 3rd-person immersion with respect to the "storygame" and "roleplay game" divide I guess have been more or less satisfied, though I still may disagree with a bit of the answers!  


Beers!

Quote from: CRKrueger;715322You want to talk story here, people are gonna question your motives and you're gonna take fire.

That's where my "desire to not step on landmines" comes in: I seriously do not know how, nor have I ever been able, to talk about RPGs without also talking about "story".  Even way back when before I ever had access to the internet and shit, long before the forge or "indie" or whatever: I still percieved RPGs as very much "story telling" games.

Ah well.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715307I'm still stumped as to how this slight change of perspective makes "storygaming" (Burning Wheel, FATE(?), Dogs in the Vineyard) an entirely different activity than "traditional roleplaying" (D&D, Shadowrun, CoC, etc.).

Because story mechanics are a form of cheating in traditional roleplaying. For example fate points in Fate, a game I refereed and played, are get a free bonus card played because it make sense to the PLAYER that it would occur at that moment in the game. There is a limitation that it has to be used in conjunction something the character has. But the Fate Character isn't running around in the setting going "Yup this is a good time to use my Fate points."

In Fudge, a closely related game that I also played and refereed, in contrast the player would using circumstances to find the bonus. Perhaps ducking behind a desk or door for cover, etc. Because this is what the CHARACTER would be doing as if he was really there.

To suddenly say "Oh by the way" there is a desk in this room and I take cover would cheating.

However while I state it clearly the mechanics and the practical aspect of running campaigns means the line is fuzzy. If I was running Harn the chances are that I can tell you without a doubt there is a desk in the room you are currently is. However if I was using an old D&D modules with bare bones maps. I would have either arbitrarily decide there is a desk or roll some chance for it. In harn the detail is present, in D&D it wasn't.

My method of handling the absence of detail is to do what makes sense given the circumstances. If I marked the room as a study there is probably a desk. If it is the ballroom there is likely not.

Also follow the "Don't be a dick about it" rule as well. If the player makes a reasonable case the detail is there.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715307Or why "storygames" are lumped in with card games, board games and video games here on this board. ( It would be different if "traditional" RPGs and "storygame" RPGs had their own forums, in addition to a third 'Other Games'; then that would make immediate sense to me )

( though, I do not dispassionately describe my character's actions unless the game is really sucking )

Because the Pundit has decreed it so. And you can tell him he stupid for doing it without being kicked off the site. Because that just how things roll around here.

Quote from: estar;715324In roleplaying you are limited to what your character can do.

In storytelling you can make anything up including new characters, new locations, new stuff at any time for any reason.

[...]

In storygames the focus shifts to the PLAYERS collaboratively working together to create a story through various mechanics. This may involve a players playing a individual character. But it differs in that the PLAYER is considering and doing things in the game but outside of what the CHARACTER can do or consider within the setting.

My limited experience with storygames (Burning Wheel games, and Sorceror pretty much as far as I know) - is that everything I can do as a Player must come from something that my Character can do.

I'm able to add details to the game world as a player, because my character knows stuff about where he lives, for instance. I'm able to call forth an NPC, because my character knows a bunch of people from a certain demographic.

QuoteAlso I will point out that there is no clear cut line in terms of mechanics alone. You have to look at what the focus is on to figure out whether it is a storygame or a traditional roleplaying. It is a similar thing to the difference between a wargame and traditional roleplaying.

This might be a fun thought experiment:

* let's take a familiar open-sourced game that has all its roots in the traditional school...  I'm thinking like one of the core bits of one of these OSR games. (something small and light)

* keep all the strict mechanics as-is, to the greatest extent possible.

* but, create two 'versions' of the game:  one with "storygame" focus/commentary, and another with "traditional" focus/commentary.


If the goal was to keep the core mechanics as similar as possible, but merely change the advice/commentary and conventions/approach - my guess is that one could create a clear "storygame" RPG and a clear "traditional" RPG - from the very same core mechanics... with nothing other than the surrounding commentary/instructional text.

In essence, I agree with you that mechanics are not by any means the sole/primary qualifiers/quantifiers in differentiating a narrative/player-driven RPG from a traditional/gm-driven RPG.

With mechanics out of the way (two games, same mechanics - different playstyle approach) - it might make it much easier to see the forest despite all the trees.

Anyone else think such a thing is possible or has merit?  Or is this a really stupid idea?

This is a short response, but: Good stuff, Estar - thanks!

( oh, and I love Harn - it's up there with my favorites - though I've never been able to talk any players into actually playing aside from character generation! )

Quote from: estar;715331Because story mechanics are a form of cheating in traditional roleplaying. For example fate points in Fate, a game I refereed and played, are get a free bonus card played because it make sense to the PLAYER that it would occur at that moment in the game. There is a limitation that it has to be used in conjunction something the character has. But the Fate Character isn't running around in the setting going "Yup this is a good time to use my Fate points."

In Fudge, a closely related game that I also played and refereed, in contrast the player would using circumstances to find the bonus. Perhaps ducking behind a desk or door for cover, etc. Because this is what the CHARACTER would be doing as if he was really there.

To suddenly say "Oh by the way" there is a desk in this room and I take cover would cheating.

However while I state it clearly the mechanics and the practical aspect of running campaigns means the line is fuzzy. If I was running Harn the chances are that I can tell you without a doubt there is a desk in the room you are currently is. However if I was using an old D&D modules with bare bones maps. I would have either arbitrarily decide there is a desk or roll some chance for it. In harn the detail is present, in D&D it wasn't.

My method of handling the absence of detail is to do what makes sense given the circumstances. If I marked the room as a study there is probably a desk. If it is the ballroom there is likely not.

Also follow the "Don't be a dick about it" rule as well. If the player makes a reasonable case the detail is there.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715343My limited experience with storygames (Burning Wheel games, and Sorceror pretty much as far as I know) - is that everything I can do as a Player must come from something that my Character can do.

I'm able to add details to the game world as a player, because my character knows stuff about where he lives, for instance. I'm able to  an NPC, because my character knows bunch of people.

This is is the essential difference between the two.

Generally true, but not always.  In Fate, a character can declare a detail by using a Fate point.  That happens entirely at the player/author level.  But in general, yeah, you have to work with what your character knows/etc., and additions are generally subject to GM veto.

I think that 'narrative mechanics' like that are an ingredient that some people just don't like.  I hate mustard.  If there's a detectable amount of mustard in anything, I find it inedible.

The two things that I find that most people object to here about 'narrative games' are:

1) Mechanics that require players to engage the game not as a character
2) Mechanics that give players authorial control over the world

And for some people, even a bit of either of these will cause extreme distaste (though I'd argue that most games include/allow for these in certain areas, we've just gotten used to those).  I can understand this - I have very similar feelings about railroad games, and am coming to have a similar reaction to character optimization.

To me, 'narrative games' cover a very wide spectrum from the mostly traditional on one end (Savage Worlds) to the utterly narrative on the other end (Fiasco).  Lumping them under one umbrella is, to me, like calling any dish with mustard in it a 'mustard dish'.  While it's functionally true from my POV, it's not terribly useful to others.

The other thing that's common with the narrative game distaste is some of the rhetoric coming from the Forge, which has in many cases been anywhere from insulting to utterly insane.  This has caused a (perhaps understandable) backlash against anything derived from prominent folks on the Forge.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715343If the goal was to keep the core mechanics as similar as possible, but merely change the advice/commentary and conventions/approach - my guess is that one could create a clear "storygame" RPG and a clear "traditional" RPG - from the same core mechanics... with nothing other than the surrounding commentary/instructional text.

You could probably phrase a game without the narrative elements above as a narrative game, but I don't believe that the reverse is true.

Another reaction I see to storygames is to some of the advice - advice that basically just rehashes what grognards have done for years.  "Say yes" is a great example.  To grognards, it often sounds like you're not permitted to say not.  But that's not the intended audience of the advice - the intended audience is GMs who have decided that the way to get into the castle is to sneak through the cellar, and that's the only way.  So when players say that they want to scale the walls, those GMs say 'no, can't, wall's too high, too many guards.'  "Say yes" really just means "hey, give player plans a shot at succeeding."  But when it's heard by people that already do that without thinking, any application of that advice takes you into bizarre lands where players can do everything.

BTW, to be very clear to everyone, I've got nothing against grognards.  I like really old-school D&D and RPGs.  A lot of criticisms against grognards and older D&D and RPGs comes from a place of ignorance, and everyone should get a chance to play in a really old-school game at some point.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715343In essence, I agree with you that mechanics are not by any means the sole/primary means of differentiating a narrative/player-driven RPG from a traditional/gm-driven RPG.

I think that's an oversimplification, though it may be true for some games.

I do think there's a fundamental truth there, though, that a lot of times the difference between the two types of games boils not down to the mechanics, but *why* things go a certain way in a game, and the priorities given to certain aspects of play.

If you're meeting a spy in a city, who is that spy?  It might be some random person generated in a more traditional game, as that's what makes sense.  In a more narrative game, it turns out that it's your childhood enemy!  The GM needs a spy, but *which* spy it is will be based upon differing priorities.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715248Thus would you say that a table of people playing AD&D 1st edition or Twilight 2000 entirely in 3rd-person, have crossed a line into "storygame" territory?

No. Obviously, they're not playing a story-creation game. They don't get to create a story, they only get to play one character, albeit in third person.
Presumably those people don't value immersion the way I do. Maybe it makes them uncomfortable or they prefer to keep a bit of distance. But third person is also the standard mode in Play By Email - in PBEMs I write my PC actions third person, just like everyone else, and there's still a level of immersion there, or at least strong character-identification. And it's definitely still RPing, not storygaming.

Quote from: estar;715331My method of handling the absence of detail is to do what makes sense given the circumstances. If I marked the room as a study there is probably a desk. If it is the ballroom there is likely not.

Also follow the "Don't be a dick about it" rule as well. If the player makes a reasonable case the detail is there.

In most cases that I've seen, "declare a detail" isn't that far off of that.  If it's reasonable that something is true, then the GM will either decide or (my usual technique) give it a random chance.

Declaring a detail just gives you a (limited) ability to swing the answer from "maybe" to "yes."  But it shouldn't allow you to swing a "no" (either because it's illogical, or previously established otherwise) to a "yes."

Thanks for the opinions and insights everyone, much appreciated.

As a final question, does this site have a list for what it considers story-games vs. traditional roleplaying games?

Quote from: double8infinity8;715261Thanks Clash - I'm trying to understand the "war" a little better, and I'd like to participate on this site.

A bunch of people are Very Very Upset that other people play RPG's in a different way to them, and that there might be RPG's designed for people and play styles they don't personally like.

Cue years of stupid butthurt arguments, and communities more interested in a game's adherence to orthodoxy than whether it's fun or not, or even whether they're in the target audience for it.

Welcome aboard!  As you'll find, a good many of us are likewise refugees from RPGnet, and for much the same reason as you.  It's a reasonably tolerant bunch; the folks you tell to fuck off will talk to you all the same, more often than not, on the next thread over.

For my part, I'm likewise one of the people who think that the "war" is badly overblown, and the distinctions between "storygames" and (allegedly) "traditional" RPGs pretty silly.  Considering the huge gulf between my heavy-roleplaying GURPS Renaissance-fantasy campaign, with all but one of my current players having spent at least a decade at my table, and the gonzo VD&D dungeon crawls you'd get at college clubs in the mid-70s, where you'd sit down to play with people you'd never seen before and would never see again, and "roleplaying" would often mean folks would call their newly-rolled characters "Charlie the Cleric" instead of "my character," it's just plain trivial.  Tabletop, LARP, MMORPG, storygames, it's all good.

As far as your own approach goes, I'm quite the opposite; I'm militantly insistent on 1st-person at my table.  My invariable reaction to "I tell the NPC to ..." is to tap my chest and say "I'm right here.  Tell me."  No one sucks at acting enough to be incapable of delivering first-person dialogue to another human being: those of us who aren't hermits or Trappist monks do so every day of ours lives.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715248Looking at some of the debates here surrounding the whole "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" categorization, it seems that a major element of "storygames" is that they entail a level of Out of Character perspective.  

3rd-person descriptions similarly entail a level of Out of Character perspective.

Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)

Roleplaying games feature mechanics associated to the game world in such a way that the mechanical decisions you make as a player are analogous and/or identical to the decisions being made by your character. The act of playing an RPG is the act of making decisions as if you were your character; i.e., it is the act of roleplaying.

Storytelling games feature mechanics which determine control over a given chunk of narrative or the actual outcome of a narrative chunk. The mechanical decisions you're making do not correspond to the decisions your character is making; ergo, the mechanical decisions are not roleplaying.

Describing your character's actions in 3rd person or 1st person is pretty much entirely tangential to the distinction between RPGs and STGs.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;715404Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)

Thanks I'll check that out shortly.

QuoteRoleplaying games feature mechanics associated to the game world in such a way that the mechanical decisions you make as a player are analogous and/or identical to the decisions being made by your character. The act of playing an RPG is the act of making decisions as if you were your character; i.e., it is the act of roleplaying.

Storytelling games feature mechanics which determine control over a given chunk of narrative or the actual outcome of a narrative chunk. The mechanical decisions you're making do not correspond to the decisions your character is making; ergo, the mechanical decisions are not roleplaying.

This seems like an o.k. distinction; but I haven't seen anything that precludes or obviates mechanical decisions corresponding to the decisions my character is making for any of the character-driven/narrative games I've read and/or played in.

For instance, every mechanical and descriptive decision I've made for my Halfling Burglar in the Torchbearer game I'm currently playing has been 100% based on "what my character would do".

I'm really not trying to be dense here; maybe it's just that my limited experience with "storygames" has so far been pretty much limited to Burning Wheel games, Sorceror, and Fate. Perhaps those are too hybridy/impure to make the distinction clear.

I haven't yet read the article you posted, but I'll do so soon. But, could you identify one or two solid-no-doubts-no-hybrid-straight-up-total storygames?  I'll then go ahead and check them out.
 

QuoteDescribing your character's actions in 3rd person or 1st person is pretty much entirely tangential to the distinction between RPGs and STGs.

So, 1st-person vs. 3rd-person is tangential, but in-character vs. out-of-character decision making is relevant?

Quote from: Ravenswing;715386Welcome aboard!  As you'll find, a good many of us are likewise refugees from RPGnet, and for much the same reason as you.  It's a reasonably tolerant bunch; the folks you tell to fuck off will talk to you all the same, more often than not, on the next thread over.

Thanks! And I'm glad to see that folks can be opinionated yet still manage to be adults over here!

QuoteFor my part, I'm likewise one of the people who think that the "war" is badly overblown, and the distinctions between "storygames" and (allegedly) "traditional" RPGs pretty silly.  Considering the huge gulf between my heavy-roleplaying GURPS Renaissance-fantasy campaign, with all but one of my current players having spent at least a decade at my table, and the gonzo VD&D dungeon crawls you'd get at college clubs in the mid-70s, where you'd sit down to play with people you'd never seen before and would never see again, and "roleplaying" would often mean folks would call their newly-rolled characters "Charlie the Cleric" instead of "my character," it's just plain trivial.  Tabletop, LARP, MMORPG, storygames, it's all good.

I can jive with this.  

QuoteAs far as your own approach goes, I'm quite the opposite; I'm militantly insistent on 1st-person at my table.  My invariable reaction to "I tell the NPC to ..." is to tap my chest and say "I'm right here.  Tell me."  No one sucks at acting enough to be incapable of delivering first-person dialogue to another human being: those of us who aren't hermits or Trappist monks do so every day of ours lives.

Heheh, that's cool. All a matter of perspective.

My perspective is that "I" am "me". So, I do not swing a sword at the NPC, my character swings his sword at the NPC.  I, on the other hand will roll the d20; or I'll mark off some hit points; or I'll choose to have my character do X instead of Y.

Generally, though, I find that for the sake of consistency and harmony at the table, that I'll adopt 1st-person if that's what everyone else is doing.  But I end up feeling further away from my character, and from the game, when doing so.

Quote from: estar;715331Because the Pundit has decreed it so. And you can tell him he stupid for doing it without being kicked off the site. Because that just how things roll around here.

And that, friends and neighbours, is what makes this site teh awesomsauce.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715417Thanks! And I'm glad to see that folks can be opinionated yet still manage to be adults over here!

Nobody said nothing about being adults; merely that they'll still talk to you. Welcome to the site!

As with a-lot of terms. The use and meaning of storytelling/story gaming has developed different meanings to different people, groups and especially factions.

One of the reasons there is the occasional flare of actual hate towards anything perceived as storytelling games is that there is a vocal faction of proponents for storytelling games that are borderline nuts. Some might argue a few are totally off their rockers. These types come across as unpleasant and some like to degrade and belittle standard RPGs. Some go totally insane at the idea of a GM having some sort of control over the session. Some want to do away with the GM alltogether.

Some of the ideas are valid and even fun. It is the WAY they go about it and how they treat traditional RPGers that throws things to hell. Other threads here and on "the other place" will display that if you hunt them down.

Personally I view a storytelling game as some others here do. It usually empowers the players and depowers the GM. It effectively makes each player a mini-GM.

More importantly the gameplay may not be about the group or the individuals in the traditional sense and the players are not really reacting to the environment so much as moving their personal agendas along. In some cases this can mean a player can override events somehow. Or override other players actions even in some cases.

But the main difference is that in a storytelling game is the play is about the story rather than the adventure as it were.

IE: "Grond sets out on an epic adventure to avenge his parents finally meets and slays the king." as opposed to "Grond set out on an adventure and met some kobolds. Stuff happened."

The players railroad the adventure, to some degree. Is the feel you might get?

Lots of variance in approaches.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415I haven't yet read the article you posted, but I'll do so soon. But, could you identify one or two solid-no-doubts-no-hybrid-straight-up-total storygames?  I'll then go ahead and check them out.

Fiasco, Once Upon a Time, and Psi*Run are examples that jump to mind.

OUAT is a game which nobody would mistake for an RPG. You have a hand of cards describing various narrative elements. While playing the game you tell a story and play cards from your hand when those narrative elements appear in the story. Your goal is to play all of your cards and conclude with your "Happily Ever After" card, but the other players can steal control of the story from you by using their cards (in various ways).

Fiasco looks more like an RPG because everyone in the game is controlling a specific character (just like everyone in Clue controls a specific character; but Clue isn't an RPG, either). Its mechanics, however, are pure STG: They determine who establishes a scene and who chooses how to close a scene. These decision, in turn, control who gets dice (and the color of those dice). And there are more mechanics surrounding those dice which allow you to control complications which get introduced to the narrative and so forth.

You'll note that in both of these games, the mechanical decisions you're making (when to play a card; what type of dice to take or receive; what complications are being introduced to the game world) aren't being made from the perspective of your character: They're narrative decisions.

Psi*Run looks even more like an RPG: It's got a GM and players each controlling a single character. But, once again, the mechanics largely aren't associated with the game world and, therefore, the mechanical decisions you're making aren't roleplaying decisions. (The players are expected to roleplay their characters, but the mechanics of the game don't have anything to do with roleplaying. Similarly, you can roleplay as your character during a game of Arkham Horror, but Arkham Horror isn't a roleplaying game.) For example, the major action resolution mechanic in Psi*Run requires the player to make a bunch of different decisions that will affect the content of the narrative in ways which have nothing to do with their individual character.

(It's a really interesting mechanic, though. Definitely worth checking out!)

QuoteSo, 1st-person vs. 3rd-person is tangential, but in-character vs. out-of-character decision making is relevant?

That's my read on it, yes.

Similarly, I occasionally act in local theater. When discussing their roles, some actors talk about their characters in the first person. ("In this moment, I really feel like I want to blah blah blah.") Other actors will talk about their characters in the third person. ("In this moment, I really like Bob wants to blah blah blah.") It definitely represents a different way of approaching and processing the act of playing a character, but both approaches are fundamentally aiming at the same goal.

Quote from: Omega;715435One of the reasons there is the occasional flare of actual hate towards anything perceived as storytelling games is that there is a vocal faction of proponents for storytelling games that are borderline nuts. Some might argue a few are totally off their rockers. These types come across as unpleasant and some like to degrade and belittle standard RPGs. Some go totally insane at the idea of a GM having some sort of control over the session. Some want to do away with the GM alltogether.

I should say though, these are quickly becoming the minority. Most storygamers now acknowledge the clear difference between RPGs and storygames, and aren't bothered by it in the slightest. See my sig for reference, nobody except a few lunatics are seriously trying to compare the two any more. These are clearly different endeavours.

Which is great news!

Quote from: Ladybird;715381A bunch of people are Very Very Upset that other people play RPG's in a different way to them, and that there might be RPG's designed for people and play styles they don't personally like.

Cue years of stupid butthurt arguments, and communities more interested in a game's adherence to orthodoxy than whether it's fun or not, or even whether they're in the target audience for it.

Some other people are not at all upset about variety in game types but prefer that an apple be called an apple and an orange an orange. Narrative rpgs are different from traditional rpgs. I happen to enjoy both types depending on mood. Those without an agenda can recognize the differences without hating either game form. Those who want to 'make the whole rpg world narrative or traditional ' or pretend there are no differences have such an agenda.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415For instance, every mechanical and descriptive decision I've made for my Halfling Burglar in the Torchbearer game I'm currently playing has been 100% based on "what my character would do".

What kind of mechanical and descriptive decisions? Every player usually decides what his or her character looks like. Deciding on other elements of the world generally isn't 'in character' unless the character is actually in a position to do so. For example, if your halfling buys his dream hobbit hole and decorates it to his taste then you are making an in-character decision regarding the description of your abode.

The rest of the world, as with ours, simply exists as it is, until your character acts to change it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;715386As far as your own approach goes, I'm quite the opposite; I'm militantly insistent on 1st-person at my table.  My invariable reaction to "I tell the NPC to ..." is to tap my chest and say "I'm right here.  Tell me."  No one sucks at acting enough to be incapable of delivering first-person dialogue to another human being: those of us who aren't hermits or Trappist monks do so every day of ours lives.

Yeah I just don't get the sheer number of people who seem to be able to lead normal lives that somehow can't just speak plainly to other people during a game. I understand that some would be quite uncomfortable doing a character voice, but regular speech doesn't seem like too much to ask for a social based game of lets pretend.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415This seems like an o.k. distinction; but I haven't seen anything that precludes or obviates mechanical decisions corresponding to the decisions my character is making for any of the character-driven/narrative games I've read and/or played in.

For instance, every mechanical and descriptive decision I've made for my Halfling Burglar in the Torchbearer game I'm currently playing has been 100% based on "what my character would do".

Are you making any other types of decisions as a player of Torchbearer? For example do you decide, with other players and the referee, the layout of a town, dungeon, or wilderness?

Understand it is a question of focus. In a tabletop RPG the ONLY decisions you can make as a player are those things that your character can do.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415I'm really not trying to be dense here; maybe it's just that my limited experience with "storygames" has so far been pretty much limited to Burning Wheel games, Sorceror, and Fate. Perhaps those are too hybridy/impure to make the distinction clear.

Sorceror (and Dogs in Vineyard) are indie games that try to promote themselves as "storygames" but in practice play like a session of D&D using the the old Dragonlance module or the original Ravenloft. I.e. the games resolve around a tightly defined plot heavy and scenario and emphasis a lot of roleplaying as in acting as a different character. Generally using lite mechanics.

Fate is a freeform lite rules engine designed to get a campaign going fast from concept to play. It does this by boiling down most actions into one of four possible outcome. Attack, Defend, Create an Advantage, Overcome an obstacle. Coupled with Fate Points which give a reroll or +2 to players and referee for making stuff on the fly that make sense in terms of what is going in the environment or character.

Burning Wheels has a lot of formal mechanics collaborative worldbuilding. That as far as I got into the games.

Are they storygames?  Well they involve more metagaming than GURPS, D&D, Hero System, Harnmaster, etc. That for sure. But they can all be run in a traditional fashion.

In the end it is a matter of focus not mechanics. Even D&D can be a story game if that how the campaign is run.

If in a campaign you are making most of your decision as a player and not as your character then likely you are playing a story game. If your make most of your decisions as the characters and not as a player then you are playing a traditional tabletop RPG.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415I haven't yet read the article you posted, but I'll do so soon. But, could you identify one or two solid-no-doubts-no-hybrid-straight-up-total storygames?  I'll then go ahead and check them out.

Once upon a Time is a clear example of a storygame. A game of collaborative storytelling.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Games-AG1250-Once-Upon/dp/1887801006

On more comment

I been refereeing 30+ years. In the mid 90s Lion Rampart the makers of Ars Magica released Whimsy Cards. Which are cards with general plot points. A card holder with the approval of the players and referee can "make up something" that fits the plot point and what is going and introduce it into the game.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/cards/whimsycards.html

We all thought it was a good idea and used throughout the spring and summer one year in the mid 90s. We stopped because it was distracting, got silly, and broke the immersion of playing the character.

We didn't like having to think about looking for a plot point to use the card in addition to playing our character. One moment we are thinking as a player then next as the character. At first it was fun and then it grew ... distracting.

The group was a bunch of mature and smart guys but when you start piling on whimsy cards the end result was a series of wildly improbable events that came off as silly. The culminated in what called the Day of the Whimsy War where in the middle of session 6 players played their cards in a single encounter resulting a wildly improbable and hilarious series of events. What made it funnier is that the individual events were pretty much were straight and serious. The combination however was not. So we put them away after that.

Six months ago I ran a Fate game with some of the same players and some new guys that are not part of my group. Afterwards we came to the same conclusion in regards to fate points and stunts.

For a light hearted free form game something like Fate works great. I don't see it working well for something gritty or risky like low fantasy.

I have some strong feelings on the subject that I shall share later as time permits. For now, I'll just welcome you and say that it was nice chatting with you in #rpgnet as well. :)

Quote from: estar;715490Six months ago I ran a Fate game with some of the same players and some new guys that are not part of my group. Afterwards we came to the same conclusion in regards to fate points and stunts.

For a light hearted free form game something like Fate works great. I don't see it working well for something gritty or risky like low fantasy.

Well, that's not my experience.  I've run some relatively gritty games in it, and it's worked fine.  I've also run less gritty games and it's worked fine.  I don't doubt your experience at all, but it's not universal.

Do you mean 'fate points and aspects'?  Because stunts are basically like feats/advantages in other systems.  I don't see where they'd get 'out of control' in any way.

Quote from: Ladybird;715381A bunch of people are Very Very Upset that other people play RPG's in a different way to them, and that there might be RPG's designed for people and play styles they don't personally like.

Cue years of stupid butthurt arguments, and communities more interested in a game's adherence to orthodoxy than whether it's fun or not, or even whether they're in the target audience for it.

Too damn right ... it's a pervasive enough attitude to form one of my Gaming Geek Fallacies (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-4.html).

Quote from: robiswrong;715575Well, that's not my experience.  I've run some relatively gritty games in it, and it's worked fine.  I've also run less gritty games and it's worked fine.  I don't doubt your experience at all, but it's not universal.

Do you mean 'fate points and aspects'?  Because stunts are basically like feats/advantages in other systems.  I don't see where they'd get 'out of control' in any way.

Going by Legends of Anglerre, the stunts in FATE 3.0 aren't my cup of tea, but that's precisely because they remind me of opening a D&D 3e book. So I think you're right, there. But I'm sure I'd feel as Rob does about the fate points/aspects/tagging stuff.

I think you can play games with metagame or narrative-control mechanics without having them go off the deep end, provided the players are committed to respecting, reinforcing, and maintaining the integrity of the setting.

The problem is that characters really couldn't give a damn about setting integrity—they have their own goals. So if you hand narrative-control mechanics to a player who works from an in-character point-of-view, they'll be conflicted between keeping things level and seeking whatever advantages they can get away with. If no one puts their foot down, you drift off toward gonzo. If the group collectively steps in, the internal mental conflict of the player who's called on to self-police may well be externalized into a kind of passive-agressive intra-group dynamic. ("Oh, yes, you're perfectly free to narrate that bizarre plot twist. We'd really, really, really, really prefer you didn't, but don't let us stop you. Your creativity must be given flight! No matter how stupid we think it is.") If someone then puts their put down to stop the nonsense, now you've got a traditional GM again.

Granted, there are metagame social controls in traditional gaming as well--from the player who avoids splitting the party even when it would be the most logical thing for their character to do, to the GM who's (at very least) open to player input on how a situation should play out. But the principle of having a GM as the final authority seems to work better for IC-POV.

Quote from: Arminius;715699Going by Legends of Anglerre, the stunts in FATE 3.0 aren't my cup of tea, but that's precisely because they remind me of opening a D&D 3e book. So I think you're right, there. But I'm sure I'd feel as Rob does about the fate points/aspects/tagging stuff.

Can't speak about Legends of Anglerre.  My understanding is it's one of the least "Fate-like" Fate games.

Quote from: Arminius;715699The problem is that characters really couldn't give a damn about setting integrity—they have their own goals. So if you hand narrative-control mechanics to a player who works from an in-character point-of-view...

I think perhaps you overestimate the amount of 'narrative control' in Fate?  It's not really 'narrative' in the GNS sense of the word, Fred Hicks has pretty much said that he considers Fate to be a good argument against GNS :)

Realistically, my experiences with Fate have been that the GM role is still pretty much a mostly traditional GM role, and the player role is still pretty much a traditional player role.  The GM still gets to say no :) The vast majority of the time, you're playing from the character POV.  The times when you're *not*, you're still almost always dealing with your character's actions anyway.

The kind of massive, world-and-plot editing stuff that I hear get bandied about is just something I haven't witnessed in Fate games - whether it's games I've run, or games I've played in, including on Google+.

And as a Fate GM, I have *zero* problem telling players "no, that's not going to happen."  And as a Fate player, I have *zero* problem being told "no, that's not going to happen."

Again, this is based on my experience specifically with Fate (I have no idea how Whimsy Cards would play out, and wouldn't comment on that).  I have seen similar "gonzo" things happen with other games - specifically Fiasco and  Penny For My Thoughts.  But it hasn't really been an issue in any Fate games I've played in.  Part of that may be that Fate character creation invests players in the world more than the more typical 'bring your character and I'll tell you what the world is about' kind of stuff - I'm not sure.  I just know that I don't see it happening in actual play.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715484Some other people are not at all upset about variety in game types but prefer that an apple be called an apple and an orange an orange. Narrative rpgs are different from traditional rpgs.

This really can't be emphasized strongly enough. The distinction between a roleplaying mechanic and a narrative control mechanic is really significant: They are literally trying to accomplish different things. And whether you're a designer looking to create a mechanic or a GM/player looking to use a mechanic, understanding the difference is really crucial to your success.

I've seen STGs run like RPGs and I've seen RPGs run like STGs. Some of these games are stylistically similar enough that this can be managed with a fair degree of success; but you're still generally trying to use a hammer to secure a screw.

(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/8/81954/2055235-oh_look_its_this_thread_again.jpg)

Fuck this noise. This forum HAS a working search engine.

Quote from: estar;715490For a light hearted free form game something like Fate works great. I don't see it working well for something gritty or risky like low fantasy.

It's built for fast paced action oriented games, but it can do low fantasy without any problems. It worked great for our clockwork and steam three musketeers game, and we had a great Dresden Files run. Our Deadlands Fate game was pretty gritty.

We don't have any problems with players not caring about the integrity of the setting. Things don't get zany because we put a little trust in the players, but if it did, the group would stomp on them until they stopped being an idiot. But, I've really not seen much of this occur in play.

I'll just +1 Robiswrong on Fate. And, LoA is very different from other Fate.

Quote from: TristramEvans;715722Fuck this noise. This forum HAS a working search engine.

Yet you still felt the need to post.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715730Yet you still felt the need to post.

What else is there to do on a forum? But no "felt"/"need" are not words I associate with therpgsite

Quote from: tristramevans;715740what else is there to do on a forum? But no "felt"/"need" are not words i associate with therpgsite

i post because i can.  Bwahhahahaha!!!!  :d

Honestly the thing that ultimately made me give up on LoA was the stunts and other crunchy complication...if anything I wanted a more purely "narrative" game. But I did also get the impression of hemming and hawing about "you can totally create the setting as a player but you're totally playing your character." So Rob's comment makes sense.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;715749i post because i can.  Bwahhahahaha!!!!  :d

Pretty much. And because Im an OCD geek.

Quote from: Arminius;715975Honestly the thing that ultimately made me give up on LoA was the stunts and other crunchy complication...if anything I wanted a more purely "narrative" game. But I did also get the impression of hemming and hawing about "you can totally create the setting as a player but you're totally playing your character." So Rob's comment makes sense.

LoA is kind of an offshoot of Fate.  It's not an Evil Hat product, and it's not on the list of the things that the Evil Hat folks excitedly go "yes!  These guys get it!" about.

I'm not sure that I'd use it as something I'd base an opinion of Fate in general on.

What may be an interesting discussion is why some people in this thread are getting very different experiences out of the game than others are - what they're doing differently, what expectations they're going in with, etc.

Holy evaporating OP, batman!

Robiswrong: that may be, but I'd already bought and sold SotC. Thematically, LoA is the only FATE game that was likely to bring me into the fold, and aside from going stunt-crazy, it suffers the general problem of FATE, so it seems, of being a turgid brick.

Anyway, we are drifting.

"Third person" can mean various things, not all of which have anything to do with storygames. Wargaming, for instance, is pretty much an antithesis of storygaming.

What irritates an "immersive" player when someone else does it will depend on the player in question. What's pretty sure to be resented is trying to force that player herself to conform to some "storygame" requirement. Some people just are not good matches for some games, the same as in the huge field of other kinds of games. When I get together with friends, we play games we all happen to enjoy.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715415So, 1st-person vs. 3rd-person is tangential, but in-character vs. out-of-character decision making is relevant?

Yes, if you distinguish those as different things.

OOC decision making can be a subcategory of "third person," too, and speaking of a character's actions using third-person grammar a tangential other subcategory; it's just a question of agreeing on semantics so we can carry on our conversation about this subject.

OOC is, however, the key distinction here of an STG from an RPG. In an STG, the player's "role" is that of an author playing a game: "Playing Bob Howard instead of playing Conan," is a pithy way of putting it.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715343My limited experience with storygames (Burning Wheel games, and Sorceror pretty much as far as I know) - is that everything I can do as a Player must come from something that my Character can do.

I'm able to add details to the game world as a player, because my character knows stuff about where he lives, for instance. I'm able to call forth an NPC, because my character knows a bunch of people from a certain demographic.

Do you have such magical powers in real life? I for one don't. Either Hank Jones is sitting at the bus stop reading the unexpurgated edition of Stranger in a Strange Land, or he's not. I can't draw on a stock of pixy-dust points to conjure him if he happens instead to be at Sears buying a lawn mower.

On the other hand, if my character happens to be a Prince of Amber, or Zeus, or a mighty Wizard, then such a warping of the world might be perfectly in character.

For instance, I consider Joss points in Dangerous Journeys to be an in-character application of supernatural powers in a world in which every person of a status corresponding to that of (in game terms) a Heroic Persona has recourse to such powers. It's no more OOC than a professional magician's employment of Heka.

Quote from: double8infinity8;715248Hey all!

I'm new here - coming over from rpg.net - of course often the first thing one does before registering/posting in a new forum is to spend a bit of time scouting out the place, getting a first impression of the culture and whatnot.

So - it appears that there is a Thing with regards to the whole "storytelling" vs "roleplaying" games here.

I hesitate to say something along the lines of "I come in peace" or "I am not trolling" - because that's the first thing any troll is going to say, right?  Anyhow, please regard this post a pure curiousity regarding your perspective.

So, as far as I've been able to make out, at least one significant reason for putting "story-games" into the big bucket of 'other games' (card games, dice games, video games, board games... and.... storygame rpgs) is that a major differentiator  in your opinion seems to be one of 'immersion'.  By all means, please correct me if I'm way off.

I come from a background of "traditional rpgs" and I've always had two major preferences:

#1:  historically, I've always had huge bias for 'simulationist'/'physics-based' mechanics/rules engines.

#2: historically, and currently, I've always had huge bias for 3rd-person perspective when describing my character's actions.


Now, I know that it is entirely possible to play traditional simulationist rpg's in 3rd-person perspective, and that by doing so, the game doesn't suddenly somehow become a "story-game". I say that I know this, because that has been my experience.

Looking at some of the debates here surrounding the whole "storygame" vs. "roleplaying game" categorization, it seems that a major element of "storygames" is that they entail a level of Out of Character perspective.  

3rd-person descriptions similarly entail a level of Out of Character perspective.

Thus would you say that a table of people playing AD&D 1st edition or Twilight 2000 entirely in 3rd-person, have crossed a line into "storygame" territory?

Or is this nuance of 3rd-person RP vs. 1st-person RP not really relevant in any real significant way to the nuance of "story-gaming" vs. "roleplay gaming"?


Cheers, and thanks!

Yeah, right.  :rolleyes:

If you start addressing your character in second person and referring to yourself in third, it might be time for professional help.

Then again, it might simply be pretentious ...