TheRPGSite

This may be ridiculously rambling, and also difficulted by my crappy English, so be patient.

First: who am I and where come I from (gaming-wise)? Well, I've been playing for more than 25 years, started with the Red Box, and still like D&D in any edition from OD&D to 4e. My favourite system is BRP (specially RQ3, though MRQ II is giving it a run for the money), and these days I'm running a 7th Sea sandbox campaign and a CoC Delta Green campaign. I have played many games, from traditional old-school games to "storytelling games" (Vampire and other WW games which I like) to artsy-fartsy more modern games (like Nobilis, which I like). I like some indie games (Sorcerer, DitV, , others (Poison'd, Maid, We all had names, Grey Ranks, Steal Away Jordan) I find boring and pointless to no end. I like immersion and genre emulation in my games, though I see how some people may not be interested on that and still be playing an RPG. So, I'm not particularly affiliated to any side in any pointless imaginary war.

Many persons here try to assert a clear division between role-playing games and story-games. This division may go from the "they're entirely different games" to the "they belong to the same family of games but they have distinctive elements and should not mingle." Of course, you can find also a lot of people who just don't give a fuck and will use (or not) any technique or idea that can improve their games, without any ideological concern.

Now, this divide fascinates me, not by the divide itself (which is just a marketing ploy to me on both sides) but because of the extreme reactions that may elicitate from some people here. Otherwise reasonable people will go apeshit ballistic at the mention of "story" as a component of RPGs, and will gry in outrage if someone mentions a narrative term related to a gaming session. They may be actively rewriting the past (as some OSR people will do regarding da pulp tradishuns of the hobby) or they may not, but they insist on keeping both things separate.

I don't understand how it can be done, such a clear separation.

To me, an RPG cannot be separated from a storytelling activity just because of basic human nature. We are narrative beings. We see stories everywhere, even where there are none, our brains strive to find patterns that can be acomodated into a coherent narrative, and if there are no patterns we will create some.

An RPG is a game in which imaginary characters under the control of the players do imaginary stuff in an environment free of restrictions apart from the limits set by the internal coherence of the imaginary setting. How cannot be found a story there? There may be or not a guy in charge of arbitrating the consequences of the PC's actions and making rules calls, or they may be none, but the activity of playing a role does not change. And most importantly, what happens it is perceived by the participants as a story, and the comparisons with other narrative media (movies, books, etc) are bound to happen. I find enormously artificial to try to keep them separated.

Does this mean that I say that RPGs should be planned or conducted like other storytelling media, that campaigns should be planned by the GM like a TV series, or a book, or the script of a film? No, not at all. But a story is going to emerge as a result of the actions of the players, and more importantly, I firmly believe that the narrative nature of RPGs will condition the actions and expected outcomes of the part of the players. Some situations will be perceived as anticlimactic, some other will feel "right" or a good closure, and so on.

Does this mean that I say that RPGs should incorporate mechanics to enforce or make sure that certain narrative outcomes are ensured? No, I think that an RPG should include mechanics that help emulate a certain mood, setting, genre or whatever the author wants. In a 7th Sea game über-gritty mechanics make no sense, and having Dramatic Dice to help PCs achieve their goals make a lot of sense if you are trying to emulate the swashbuckling genre.

But there are many "storygamey" mechanics that are reviled and despised here that fall into the exact same camp, and it shows a curious double standard on the part of the people who hates the very idea of story-telling mixed with their RPGs. Humanity in Vampire (or Sorcerer) emulates certain mood and maybe genre (depending on your literary sources). And so on: and it is great, because it makes games different. If all the RPGs try to be a physics engine and nothing more, then there's not much reason to look out for variety: you can just get your favourite physics engine (BRP, GURPS, D20, whatever) and run everything with it, with the ocasional tweaking. This does not have to be bad, of course. If you are happy using a system for everything, that's great.

The thing is, in story-telling games or storygames, the mechanics that make them supposedly different don't shape the events of the game to produce a predetermined outcome. Actually the opposite, as many times those mechanics are in the hands of the players, and you never know what the hell they will do. If someone knows, he could explain me how he does it.

And that is possibly why whenever some tries to draw a line in the sand ("Hero Points and other bennies are storygamey and thus a sin!") they are always sticking the foot on their mouths. Because you can't. Concerns about the story that arises from a game session have been there since the beginning both in the mechanic part and in the GMing advice in books. And it is only natural, because of course we are telling an improv story with no determined outcome about some imaginary people. And even if I don't like to do that and I don't do it, I can understand why some people may prefer to fudge rolls so a PC won't die in a random encounter but will let the PC die when fighting the main antagonist of the campaign.

We GMs plan possible stories even when we are developing a sandbox, in terms of plotlines that the players may or not follow. And when the palyers disregard a plotline then we decide what happens with that and create the story ourselves to enrich the setting. Pretending otherwise is using a good pair of blinders, because it goes against our very instincts.

Well, that pretty much covers it. Not sure on how coherent it resulted. :D

What Ramon says is self-evident and common sense, and thus will be fiercely attacked by "trad game" and "storygame" lovers both.

Almost every rpg has both "trad" (random determination, GM-as-challenge-creator/arbiter, etc) elements and "storygame" (hero points, GM-as-fudger, "scene-framing" formal or informal, etc) elements. If these elements are not present in the rules they will usually be present in play.

Of course, if the mix of "trad" and "storygame" elements you use are extremely different to mine, then your game play style is wrong and stupid. This is much as the way that even "free market" economies have many "socialist" features, and vice versa; but we can nonetheless say that a pure "socialist" economy like DPRK is wrong and stupid. Storygames are wrong and stupid, but storygame elements are useful in right and smart play.

I can say that your shade of grey is too dark or too pale without pretending that things are black and white. But if we're to have an imaginary war then we certainly need to pretend things are black and white. (This is particularly so if we're an academic whose name turns up no hits on google scholar, but much the same applies to the rest of us nobodies.)

I see myself as being in the pro-immersion camp, but it seems fundamentally clear to me that a story does indeed emerge through play. The interesting question is - who is telling that story? I think there's a very strong argument for saying that in a "trad" RPG where the GM is the "ultimate authority", it's the GM who is telling the story. What the players choose for their characters doesn't become in-game reality unless/until the GM lets it (though he might do so tacitly or by implication, and not necessarily expressly).

A storygame is (or should be) called a storygame (or storytelling game - same difference) because the players are participating in telling the story. A game is (best) named after what the players do, not what the ref does (you don't call football or any other ballgame "watchball" because the ref watches the ball...). So if the players in an immersive RPG are not participating in telling the story, it would be giving it the wrong emphasis to call it a storygame.

I also agree that a mix of story and roleplay is more or less inevitable. Even if the players are roleplaying immersively, the GM in a "trad" RPG is effectively storygaming (or storytelling) much of the time. That doesn't stop the players roleplaying immersively - on the contrary, it facilitates it. Why would it be a bad thing to mix these two styles? But I give primacy to immersive roleplay because that's where I think the core enjoyment of RPGs lies for me and for many committed gamers:- the GM's enjoyment of the game is often a more "reflective" enjoyment which consists in giving the players a good time. You also have a dividing line alone the lines of "GM as ultimate authority" vs. "shared narrative authority" which really biases the game towards being more immersive or more storygamey and I think that's one of the main demarcating features where you can say which sort of game you're playing.

I'm covering most of these topics at slightly greater length as part of a longer analysis of immersive roleplay which I wrote some time ago and am currently editing. (I'll be putting it at the back of my new RPG as the GMing advice / playing advice / roleplay tips section.)

The main difference is one of focus.  Mechanics by themselves generally don't make for a story game. For a roleplaying game the story comes after as a description of what the players done. For story games the story come first and the players are creating the details of what happened.

One reason that story games have a strong reaction from tabletop roleplayers is that it looks like a system of cheating with get out of jail free cards all over the place. Don't like what happened? Play a plot twist, roll on a table, or whatever. You WILL wind up rescuing the princess, and become king.

Story gamers in contrast look at tabletop roleplaying as stick in the muds devoted to an aging and outdated game. Can't fathom what is fun about making character after character after the previous died some horrible death at the hand of a capricious and arbitrary referee.

Like anything most gamers are not that extreme and many RPGs incorporate story game elements. Mechanics that allow players control the game outside of what their character can do. So we get a muddled mess.

But the line can be drawn for a game by seeing where the focus lies. Is it on the character and the story comes from describing what happened? Or is the story known before the game and the players are just filling in the details. In the former the focus is on characters, the latter the focus is on story.

Whatever I do with my games I seem to end up in the middle ground.

With Tough Justice it's very character driven but also Team Adversarial and based around Social/Investigation with an overly simple Combat mechanic.

Courtesans is even more Character driven but to the point of throwing out plot almost entierly and having no Combat system at all in the core rules.

Doxy is more Trad in that actions are freer and Combat is fully fleshed out and in the core rules but also more storygamey in that you choose the consequences of your Risky Actions should they come up as fails on the Risk Check.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465742Almost every rpg has both "trad" (random determination, GM-as-challenge-creator/arbiter, etc) elements and "storygame" (hero points, GM-as-fudger, "scene-framing" formal or informal, etc) elements. If these elements are not present in the rules they will usually be present in play.

Emphasis mine. My problem with the division lies in actual play, as in actual play the lines are nonexistent.

Quote from: Omnifray;465744I see myself as being in the pro-immersion camp, but it seems fundamentally clear to me that a story does indeed emerge through play. The interesting question is - who is telling that story? I think there's a very strong argument for saying that in a "trad" RPG where the GM is the "ultimate authority", it's the GM who is telling the story. What the players choose for their characters doesn't become in-game reality unless/until the GM lets it (though he might do so tacitly or by implication, and not necessarily expressly).

Maybe we could say that no one "tells" the story by his own, but the GM decision makes it final.

QuoteA storygame is (or should be) called a storygame (or storytelling game - same difference) because the players are participating in telling the story. A game is (best) named after what the players do, not what the ref does (you don't call football or any other ballgame "watchball" because the ref watches the ball...). So if the players in an immersive RPG are not participating in telling the story, it would be giving it the wrong emphasis to call it a storygame.

Well, as long as they are stating the intent of their characters in any game they are telling what the character tries to do. On that, they also tell a story. Same with dialogues.

QuoteWhy would it be a bad thing to mix these two styles?

Beats me.

Quote from: estar;465745But the line can be drawn for a game by seeing where the focus lies. Is it on the character and the story comes from describing what happened? Or is the story known before the game and the players are just filling in the details. In the former the focus is on characters, the latter the focus is on story.

Good post. :)

But even if we follow your reasoning and draw the line according to focus, things still get muddy.

Lets' use Sorcerer as an example. In Sorcerer, since the chargen, everything revolves around the characters, what the characters do and the problems they face (and how they choose to solve them, as that impacts their Humanity). The GM does not create any plot, apart from thinking about some problems he can throw at the PCs that are related to the PC's goals and situations.

But Sorcerer is an RPG as regular as you can get. You have a GM telling you what and when to roll, you use dice to see if you get things your way, the works. The game tries to create compelling stories about troubled characters that make tough moral decisions. But everything is about the character and the characters can die easily.

Quote from: Imperator;465748Well, as long as they are stating the intent of their characters in any game they are telling what the character tries to do. On that, they also tell a story. Same with dialogues.

Strictly speaking they are not stating their character's intentions nor what their character is trying to do. The players are stating the players' choices for their characters.

The ref could always overrule them and say - "sorry, the mind control effect means that your character does NOT wish to attack the Lich King". I'm not saying that that ought to be a regular occurrence.

But the players are not TELLING the story. They are merely in effect suggesting possible elements for it.

Also the PURPOSE of the player choosing his character's actions is not to NARRATE their outcome but simply to CHOOSE the actions - it's doing-by-speaking or an illocutionary act (which was discussed at great length on this forum a while back). In that sense too the players are not TELLING the story (narrating it). They are certainly INFLUENCING the story, but that's not the central purpose of what they are doing, which is simply to play the role of their characters.

(All of this of course is restricted to immersive roleplaying games as opposed to storygames.)

Quote from: Imperator;465748Good post. :)

But even if we follow your reasoning and draw the line according to focus, things still get muddy.

Lets' use Sorcerer as an example. In Sorcerer, since the chargen, everything revolves around the characters, what the characters do and the problems they face (and how they choose to solve them, as that impacts their Humanity). The GM does not create any plot, apart from thinking about some problems he can throw at the PCs that are related to the PC's goals and situations.

But Sorcerer is an RPG as regular as you can get. You have a GM telling you what and when to roll, you use dice to see if you get things your way, the works. The game tries to create compelling stories about troubled characters that make tough moral decisions. But everything is about the character and the characters can die easily.

I don't consider mechanics to help flesh out your character personality or life circumstances to be story mechanics. As they are background to when the campaign starts. Knowing what destroys your sorcerer's humanity is no difference than knowing that you served 4 terms in the Imperial Navy and that you are friends with the Grand Admiral.

Quote from: Imperator;465739An RPG is a game in which imaginary characters under the control of the players do imaginary stuff in an environment free of restrictions apart from the limits set by the internal coherence of the imaginary setting. How cannot be found a story there?

I don't have the time right now to get into much detail (been busy over the last few days with preparations for our move) but I'm simply going to present my POV quickly on this. It's on record here all over the place. Let me remind you that to me it's a question of shades in practice, not a clear either/or sort of line in the sand, but for a few games at either extremes of the spectrum.

I think the problem is the way you define an RPG here. It's all there. Your description of an RPG is correct, but it completely misses the point of the game itself, to me : to create the illusion that you are yourself in the make-believe, and to act in a world that is "real", or has the appearance of reality, to your mind's eye.

If you start by conceiving the game as a narrative, a story to be told, you play the game from a third person bird's eye point of view. You don't have this blurrying of the line going on because you have the constant input of authorial mechanics and a shitload of bullshit to constantly remind you that you player are manipulating your "little guy in the game".

That's not what I want to do when I play an RPG. I don't want to play with the strings of my character from an author's POV. I want to BE my character. I want to role play. Not write a novella.

Quote from: Imperator;465748Emphasis mine. My problem with the division lies in actual play, as in actual play the lines are nonexistent.

I acknowledge that to you these lines aren't existent, but to me it's the whole point of talking about this : that it does matter for me in actual play. That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

From these preconceptions are derived so many boneheaded concepts like story arcs and railroading and "my players are not compliant with my grand scheme so I'll make them!" to writing novels through RPGs and submitting players to games where their characters can't do anything to affect the world, to game mechanics piling on to a point the make-believe is completely secondary to a type of game that's whatever isn't role playing, board game, cooperative writing, whatever ... the declinations of the fundamental mistake in conceiving RPG games as cooperative storytelling or narratives is ALL OVER THE PLACE for you to check out. Seriously. Check out each thread on RPG forums where DMs or players complain about something not being right with their games. You'll find that a large chunk of these issues go back to this fallacy of "RPGs are stories".

Quote from: Benoist;465767I acknowledge that to you these lines aren't existent, but to me it's the whole point of talking about this : that it does matter for me in actual play. That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

From these preconceptions are derived so many boneheaded concepts like story arcs and railroading and "my players are not compliant with my grand scheme so I'll make them!" to writing novels through RPGs and submitting players to games where their characters can't do anything to affect the world, to game mechanics piling on to a point the make-believe is completely secondary to a type of game that's whatever isn't role playing, board game, cooperative writing, whatever ... the declinations of the fundamental mistake in conceiving RPG games as cooperative storytelling or narratives is ALL OVER THE PLACE for you to check out. Seriously. Check out each thread on RPG forums where DMs or players complain about something not being right with their games. You'll find that a large chunk of these issues go back to this fallacy of "RPGs are stories".

I thought Imperator made it very clear that he wasn't saying that the fact that a story emerged from an RPG had any implications AT ALL for what rules the RPG should have or what your objectives for/during play should be. I didn't read him as suggesting that RPGS "are" stories, simply that they involve an inevitable, intrinsic element of story.

The point he's making is fundamentally simple:- it's artificial to try to pretend that there is NO STORY in a roleplaying game or that a roleplaying game ever COMPLETELY avoids techniques of story. I completely agree with that assertion.

Imperator is not suggesting that the game ought to be devised or run in any kind of way which is derived from a story perspective. He's just saying really that the dividing line between storygames and immersive roleplaying games is inherently a bit blurry and that hostility to even the SLIGHTEST mention of "story" is misconceived. And that must be right.

Having said which I can also see where you're coming from in wanting to avoid the use of story terminology which could then be used as a false basis for pushing the game in more storygamey directions. But it seems to me that a better way for immersive roleplayers to explain the essence of their position, to make it more persuasive and more easily understood, is to acknowledge the inevitable element of story and explain what makes immersive gamers tick and why the element of story, though present, is not what's central to the game experience.

Quote from: Omnifray;465761Strictly speaking they are not stating their character's intentions nor what their character is trying to do. The players are stating the players' choices for their characters.

The ref could always overrule them and say - "sorry, the mind control effect means that your character does NOT wish to attack the Lich King". I'm not saying that that ought to be a regular occurrence.

But the players are not TELLING the story. They are merely in effect suggesting possible elements for it.

Also the PURPOSE of the player choosing his character's actions is not to NARRATE their outcome but simply to CHOOSE the actions - it's doing-by-speaking or an illocutionary act (which was discussed at great length on this forum a while back). In that sense too the players are not TELLING the story (narrating it). They are certainly INFLUENCING the story, but that's not the central purpose of what they are doing, which is simply to play the role of their characters.

(All of this of course is restricted to immersive roleplaying games as opposed to storygames.)

Well, you may have a point there, and I should mull a bit more over it, but I'm not persuaded that it represents a substantial difference in actual play. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I haven't found my immersion either difficulted or facilitated by either game,

Quote from: estar;465764I don't consider mechanics to help flesh out your character personality or life circumstances to be story mechanics. As they are background to when the campaign starts. Knowing what destroys your sorcerer's humanity is no difference than knowing that you served 4 terms in the Imperial Navy and that you are friends with the Grand Admiral.

Well, knowing that you are friends with the GA cannot end the game to your PC, as if you lose your last Humanity point. :)

Quote from: Benoist;465766I think the problem is the way you define an RPG here. It's all there. Your description of an RPG is correct, but it completely misses the point of the game itself, to me: to create the illusion that you are yourself in the make-believe, and to act in a world that is "real", or has the appearance of reality, to your mind's eye.

Well, we share that goal. But my experience has shown me that many people play RPGs (undoubtedly RPGs) for different reasons and that doesn't make their experiences less of an RPG.

QuoteIf you start by conceiving the game as a narrative, a story to be told, you play the game from a third person bird's eye point of view. You don't have this blurrying of the line going on because you have the constant input of authorial mechanics and a shitload of bullshit to constantly remind you that you player are manipulating your "little guy in the game".

But that is not exclusive of storygames: I've met many guys that essentially play themselves in a fantasy setting, and they still are RPGing. I don't think a player is not playing an RPG if he chooses to use third person to describe his PC's actions, and if you were to tell him that he's not playing D&D he would probably be very confused.

QuoteThat's not what I want to do when I play an RPG. I don't want to play with the strings of my character from an author's POV. I want to BE my character. I want to role play. Not write a novella.

Again, that is a goal I share. But acknowledging that there is a story in every game session does not automatically equal wanting to write a novel.

If you are running an ol' D&D sandbox game, in between sessions you will do some planning and preparations. If the players tell you that they want to explore the Old Temple of Weird Creepy Shit and retrieve Ye Olde Artifact of Doing Crazy Shit, you will probably spend some time mapping the place in detail, thinking about the denizens of the place (maybe there are factions and stuff), and creating some NPCs with backgrounds and shit. So you are creating a metric fuckton of story material right there: there is a story ready to spring as soon as the game starts, and you will probably make some decisions thinking on what sounds more fun. Those are probably dramatic decisions, as you are thinking not only in what is probable ("Can the bad guys have heard about the PCs last exploit?") but also what is more fun from the options you have.

Quote from: Benoist;465767I acknowledge that to you these lines aren't existent, but to me it's the whole point of talking about this : that it does matter for me in actual play. That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

From these preconceptions are derived so many boneheaded concepts like story arcs and railroading and "my players are not compliant with my grand scheme so I'll make them!" to writing novels through RPGs and submitting players to games where their characters can't do anything to affect the world, to game mechanics piling on to a point the make-believe is completely secondary to a type of game that's whatever isn't role playing, board game, cooperative writing, whatever ... the declinations of the fundamental mistake in conceiving RPG games as cooperative storytelling or narratives is ALL OVER THE PLACE for you to check out. Seriously. Check out each thread on RPG forums where DMs or players complain about something not being right with their games. You'll find that a large chunk of these issues go back to this fallacy of "RPGs are stories".

Quote from: Benoist;465767That there are narrative elements of rules and ways to look at the game as a story that basically wreck my enjoyment of a game sitting there at the table. That's the whole point.

Oh, I'm not arguing that. Some people like some things, some people will like others.

It is totally OK to say "I don't like metagamey stuff." An old player of mine likes CoC because it has no bennies whatosoever.

Quote from: Omnifray;465769I thought Imperator made it very clear that he wasn't saying that the fact that a story emerged from an RPG had any implications AT ALL for what rules the RPG should have or what your objectives for/during play should be. I didn't read him as suggesting that RPGS "are" stories, simply that they involve an inevitable, intrinsic element of story.

Exactly.

QuoteImperator is not suggesting that the game ought to be devised or run in any kind of way which is derived from a story perspective. He's just saying really that the dividing line between storygames and immersive roleplaying games is inherently a bit blurry and that hostility to even the SLIGHTEST mention of "story" is misconceived. And that must be right.

Exactly, you said it better than I.

I'm planning next Friday's 7th Sea game. PCs have wrecked some chaos into one of the bad guy's plans so he will push back. I have to think what he will do, how and why. Thinking about that, for me, is writing a story: the same thing you do when you are writing a book and you try to make a character's actions coherent with his personality.

Now, I don't know what will happen at the game. I only know where the game will start (as they are in a Castillian port trying to make some reparations to ther ship) what my NPCs will try to do (they owe some money to this mob boss and he wants it, and also they have a sect after them that has just known about their location), and I have some clues on what the players will try to achieve, but they can change their minds halfway there.

QuoteHaving said which I can also see where you're coming from in wanting to avoid the use of story terminology which could then be used as a false basis for pushing the game in more storygamey directions. But it seems to me that a better way for immersive roleplayers to explain the essence of their position, to make it more persuasive and more easily understood, is to acknowledge the inevitable element of story and explain what makes immersive gamers tick and why the element of story, though present, is not what's central to the game experience.

That is my point.

If the players have a goal, that goal becomes the plot of the story that is unfolding. In Ben's game, my PC is half-dead, in some strange limbo. And there's a story: the story of how Gareth got whacked by this cthulhoid monster and then he woke up in ths weird limbo and he's trying to find his way out and back to the reality he knew. My goal (as player and character) is to get out, and that is he plot of the story. Now, I'm sure that Ben hasn't planned this in terms of story arcs and shit but, heck, this situation is a story arc and it doesn't change the nature of the game.

I won't buy a game that forces me to make my games according to a literary structure, but there is a structure because our brains strive to create one. It is inmediate: the first chapter of Gareth's story is that in wich he meets other PCs, goes down a dungeon and gets his ass kicked. Chapter 2 is that in which he's in some freaky limbo trying to get out. It is the natural way of developing for such a situation, our brain starts automatically to structure it like that. The fact that neither Ben nor I planned the structure in advance (we didn't) does not make the structure less real.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465742What Ramon says is self-evident and common sense, and thus will be fiercely attacked by "trad game" and "storygame" lovers both.

No, no! This one time common sense will prevail! This tide is turning, the stars are right.

I can sort of see how an axis between "story game" and "trad games", it's not very meaningful to me and wouldn't want to game at either extreme - the former I find kind of shallow, the latter lacks soul, lacks poetry.

I'd go further and say while I enjoy imersion it needs to be tempered through the lens genre convention for. Without genre conventions providing a literary internal consistency the average game for me would quickly turn into "You want me to go WHERE and fight the WHAT? Are out of you freakin' mind?"

QuoteI don't understand how it can be done, such a clear separation.

To me, an RPG cannot be separated from a storytelling activity just because of basic human nature. We are narrative beings. We see stories everywhere, even where there are none, our brains strive to find patterns that can be acomodated into a coherent narrative, and if there are no patterns we will create some.

Sure, this is why a division of games is silly and a bad definition, whereas defining story gaming as something a player does is helpful and positive and always works in every situation. Nobody uses this definition, it would get in the way of screaming at each other so loudly that blood drips from their eyes.

But pretty much yep, I agree.

If I can understand why a game was designed the way it was, it saves me a lot of trouble figuring it out as a GM.  So if the author is explicit about their goals for the game, it saves me the trouble of trying to hack away bits that don't work for my own goals.

Granted, I don't usually break it down by story-game vs RPG, but I do like knowing what the game is "about", in a broad sense, and that can help me determine if I'll like it or not.

Frex, RuneQuest 2e was about your character living in and exploring Glorantha
D&D is about going on adventure in exotic locations and being rewarded for being bold and prudent
Call of Cthulhu is about investigation and characters facing horrors that destroy their mind
Burning Wheel is about challenging the characters' beliefs
Sorcerer is about dealing with dysfunctional relationships and the stories that come out of that
Unknown Armies is about exploring the psychological makeup of your character in a fucked up occult underground
FATE games are about lots of color and celebrating character through play (with some themes tacked on after-the-fact depending on the genre/universe you're emulating)

Those things, along with the mechanics presented, tell me a lot more about how play is going to be than a vague "story-game" label.

Quote from: Benoist;465766I don't have the time right now to get into much detail (been busy over the last few days with preparations for our move) but I'm simply going to present my POV quickly on this. It's on record here all over the place. Let me remind you that to me it's a question of shades in practice, not a clear either/or sort of line in the sand, but for a few games at either extremes of the spectrum.

No it isn't, not to you, you think that if someone plays a Dragonlance module, that they're not playing D&D. You think that there is a line in the sand and ANY attention to story, ANY desire for story, the very existence of the word "story" in someone's gaming vocabulary forever taints what they do, period.

You remember. You told me so.

Idk, Corley.  Procedures for play do change the game being played.  I wouldn't say "it's not D&D" because the statement is a bit extreme, but the type of play expected when playing through the Dragonlance modules is quite a bit different than older D&D play.

Quote from: Imperator;465777I'm planning next Friday's 7th Sea game. PCs have wrecked some chaos into one of the bad guy's plans so he will push back. I have to think what he will do, how and why. Thinking about that, for me, is writing a story: the same thing you do when you are writing a book and you try to make a character's actions coherent with his personality.

You are writing plot not story. A novelist uses his plot to write a story. For you the plot is a plan of action that will promptly get wrecked by the PCs.

A good plot will help you understand the range of possibilities and leave you prepared for what the players actually do.  Also as you come to know your group, you will find that much of what they is predictable.

Quote from: Imperator;465777Now, I don't know what will happen at the game. I only know where the game will start ...

That exactly what happens with Tabletop RPG Plot

Quote from: Peregrin;465787Idk, Corley.  Procedures for play do change the game being played.  I wouldn't say "it's not D&D" because the statement is a bit extreme, but the type of play expected when playing through the Dragonlance modules is quite a bit different than older D&D play.

Sure! I absolutely agree that you can have many different approaches to D&D, or to most other RPGs. Some of these might be called story approaches, and thus "story gaming". Thus, I have no problem differentiating between Dragonlance module D&D play where the players are interested in creating story and D&D play (of whatever setting and material) where players have no such interests. Benoist has solved this problem by going insane and saying that they're not playing D&D at all if they have even the faintest hint of an interest in story.

There are even some RPGs that don't really support more than one approach, they're extremely non-flexible and only do one thing. But making decisions about how to classify things by looking at them is trying to evaluate all video games by looking very closely at whatever the latest Madden shovelware is.

Quote from: JDCorley;465786No it isn't, not to you, you think that if someone plays a Dragonlance module, that they're not playing D&D.

You always forget the "as written" part. Reading comprehension is your friend. I told you that someone who plays a Dragonlance module by the book, as written, is in essence not playing D&D. I totally stand by those words.

Quote from: Omnifray;465769I thought Imperator made it very clear that he wasn't saying that the fact that a story emerged from an RPG had any implications AT ALL for what rules the RPG should have or what your objectives for/during play should be. I didn't read him as suggesting that RPGS "are" stories, simply that they involve an inevitable, intrinsic element of story.

Then he is fundamentally misunderstanding the point of such debates. Nobody discusses the fact that a story emerges after the fact from a role playing game session, a story you can tell to your buddies at the pub once the game's been played.

The whole debate about narratives and story concepts in role playing games centers around the conception of play itself as collaborative storytelling, which inspires game design, adventure and campaign structures, and ultimately how the game unfolds. That's the whole point.

So OK, fine, it's not what Ramon's talking about, but then it's no wonder he doesn't understand guys like me who have such problems : because I'm not talking about what he's talking about, then.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465782I can sort of see how an axis between "story game" and "trad games", it's not very meaningful to me and wouldn't want to game at either extreme - the former I find kind of shallow, the latter lacks soul, lacks poetry.

Actually, if you remove all the story from D&D, the game becomes just that boardgame thing that people has always accused D&D of being.

Quote from: Peregrin;465785Granted, I don't usually break it down by story-game vs RPG, but I do like knowing what the game is "about", in a broad sense, and that can help me determine if I'll like it or not.

Of course, that is a useful information. Then, I don't see how saying "is a trad RPG" or "is a storygame" gives any useful information.

Quote from: estar;465788You are writing plot not story. A novelist uses his plot to write a story. For you the plot is a plan of action that will promptly get wrecked by the PCs.

Fair enough. I think this may be a language thing. For me, the difference between plot and story is not that big.

Quote from: Benoist;465792You always forget the "as written" part. Reading comprehension is your friend. I told you that someone who plays a Dragonlance module by the book, as written, is in essence not playing D&D. I totally stand by those words.

Wow. How are they not playing D&D? Of course they are. There's a DM; funny dice, monsters to slay, XPs, the works. Yeah, the modules may be shitty, but shitty modules are also part of the game.

Quote from: Benoist;465794Then he is fundamentally misunderstanding the point of such debates. Nobody discusses the fact that a story emerges after the fact from a role playing game session, a story you can tell to your buddies at the pub once the game's been played.

The whole debate about narratives and story concepts in role playing games centers around the conception of play itself as collaborative storytelling, which inspires game design, adventure and campaign structures, and ultimately how the game unfolds. That's the whole point.

So OK, fine, it's not what Ramon's talking about, but then it's no wonder he doesn't understand guys like me who have such problems : because I'm not talking about what he's talking about, then.

I fully agree.  This is the difference between emergent stories (most trad games) and intentional stories (most, well, storyteller games).

I don't even really have a problem with White Wolf's take on the mixture.  I don't much care for it, but it seems to work pretty well on the whole.  It's most of the storygames that are reviled around here where I take exception.  The ones that I have looked over are glorified writer's workshop tools.  The players or characters don't even run the risk of the adventures they describe (http://www.story-games.com/codex/index.php?title=The_Committee_for_the_Exploration_of_Mysteries).  Is it a pleasant evening of enjoyment?  For the people who like it, there is no doubt.  What it lacks, however, is the element of game.  Sure, in the very broadest sense of game, they have certain elements; we are on the border of losing any meaningful definition of game at the point where they intersect.

As examples from the other end of the spectrum, later editions of D&D and almost all editions of Warhammer have too much game.  Warhammer is far, far too lethal, while D&D has become waaaay too fiddly, dragging combat out to hours for even a fairly simple engagement.

People can drag out the nostalgia canard all day long; it's mostly just a dodge.  For me, the vintage games managed to hit the balance just about exactly, while allowing plenty of wiggle room to play the game however you wanted.

Quote from: StormBringer;465805I fully agree.  This is the difference between emergent stories (most trad games) and intentional stories (most, well, storyteller games).

Well, of course you cannot have a story fully planned before the game, that's silly, your players won't behave as expected. But you definitely plot before the game. And that is a story element, even if it doesn't unfold like you expected. And it is not a terrible thing.

QuotePeople can drag out the nostalgia canard all day long; it's mostly just a dodge.  For me, the vintage games managed to hit the balance just about exactly, while allowing plenty of wiggle room to play the game however you wanted.

Two things:

1) Dude, my favourite game is RQ3. Vintage games rock, and as etsar has said many times (and I agree) the fact that a game is old doesn't make it more or less fun.

2) The nostalgia canard is a real phenomenon: is not the only reason for some people to like old games (my own case, Ben's or yours) but I see in many OSR people a lot of mental contortions to try and convince themselves that somehow the limitations of old games are features. Which aren't. Those limitations are not features produced by a conscious effor of the designer to achieve some designer goal. Those limitations exist because no one knew what they were doing and most probably hey didn't give a shit. Which is 110% OK in my book and I love it. But please, let's be honest: there's a lot of ill-conceived nostalgia in many OSR posts around the web, and a lot of the "everything was better wen I was young" attitude which is utter bullshit. I'm not aiming this specifically at you or Ben, by the way, it's more a general feel I'e got browsing many OSR websites and messageboards and the like.

Quote from: StormBringer;465805I don't even really have a problem with White Wolf's take on the mixture.

World of Darkness games are fascinating regarding this debate, because for all the talk about Storytelling and all, what you got is a bunch of very traditional games, which were played by the vast majority of gamers as traditional games. Hence the disconnect, the way many look at White Wolf modules/adventures and wonder what the fuck they had been smoking when writing such pieces of shit : because when most people played trad games with their games, they enacted their actual storytelling logic onto the adventures, and thus the contrast showed sharply between those, on one side, and the rules and sandbox by Night books, on the other.

It's fascinating, really.

Quote from: Imperator;465803Wow. How are they not playing D&D? Of course they are. There's a DM; funny dice, monsters to slay, XPs, the works. Yeah, the modules may be shitty, but shitty modules are also part of the game.

They are not playing D&D as discussed between the covers of the PH and DMG. I let you read for yourself from there.

As for funny dice, monsters to slay and XPs, those are present in MB's HeroQuest too. I guess that makes it D&D, then?

Quote from: Imperator;4658122) The nostalgia canard is a real phenomenon: is not the only reason for some people to like old games (my own case, Ben's or yours) but I see in many OSR people a lot of mental contortions to try and convince themselves that somehow the limitations of old games are features. Which aren't. Those limitations are not features produced by a conscious effor of the designer to achieve some designer goal. Those limitations exist because no one knew what they were doing and most probably hey didn't give a shit. Which is 110% OK in my book and I love it. But please, let's be honest: there's a lot of ill-conceived nostalgia in many OSR posts around the web, and a lot of the "everything was better wen I was young" attitude which is utter bullshit. I'm not aiming this specifically at you or Ben, by the way, it's more a general feel I'e got browsing many OSR websites and messageboards and the like.

Just speaking for myself, I play AD&D now, I like its game play, aesthetics, the whole lot of it, now. The way I played AD&D twenty plus years ago is not something I feel much nostalgia for, except my very first games, probably, because these were played with a really good DM who "got the game", though I wasn't able to understand that at the time.

So. To me, most "limitations" people keep talking about are features. I'm looking now at the game in a way I was not twenty years ago. And my gaming's better for it. I wish everyone would be able to see what I see, but that's not the case. I'm fine with that. Just don't tell me it's illusionism on my part (I mean in general - I know you're not accusing me of doing that yourself). It's not.

Quote from: Benoist;465821World of Darkness games are fascinating regarding this debate, because for all the talk about Storytelling and all, what you got is a bunch of very traditional games, which were played by the vast majority of gamers as traditional games.

Wordy McWord.

Quote from: Benoist;465822They are not playing D&D as discussed between the covers of the PH and DMG. I let you read for yourself from there.

Well, but then again that is limiting yourself to your favourite edition of choice, because they were totally playing AD&D according to 2nd edition. Yeah, I know, AD&D 2nd ed is bound with newborn babies' foreskins and all that.

QuoteAs for funny dice, monsters to slay and XPs, those are present in MB's HeroQuest too. I guess that makes it D&D, then?

Well, I've done a lot of heavy roleplaying with Advanced HeroQuest, and we definitely played an absolutely rocking campaign for more than a year, with lots of character development. So yeah, why not?

It's all in how you use the tool.

Quote from: Benoist;465824Just speaking for myself, I play AD&D now, I like its game play, aesthetics, the whole lot of it, now. The way I played AD&D twenty plus years ago is not something I feel much nostalgia for, except my very first games, probably, because these were played with a really good DM who "got the game", though I wasn't able to understand that at the time.

So. To me, most "limitations" people keep talking about are features. I'm looking now at the game in a way I was not twenty years ago. And my gaming's better for it. I wish everyone would be able to see what I see, but that's not the case. I'm fine with that. Just don't tell me it's illusionism on my part (I mean in general - I know you're not accusing me of doing that yourself). It's not.

I'm happy for you, and I also pretty much feel the same. Tht is why I love S&W WB, and I'm enjoying LotFP. The OSR has been good to me, as the indie games, as WW, and as most gaming events throughout my life.

The illusionism you mention is not something I find in genuinely enthusiastic guys like you: but is definitely there in many places all over the web. Appreciating the goodness in old games (and there's lots of it) should not lead us to acritically accept their limitations, and I find lots of Gygax worshipping, lots of treating 1e DMG as the fucking Gospel and it's nonsensical. Yeah, it's a great book, no doubt about it.

Quote from: Imperator;465828Well, but then again that is limiting yourself to your favourite edition of choice, because they were totally playing AD&D according to 2nd edition. Yeah, I know, AD&D 2nd ed is bound with newborn babies' foreskins and all that.

Well yeah, of course it is. Never noticed the smell of dead babies exuding from your shelf? :D

And yeah, I'll totally own up to that: this statement is based on a defined approach of D&D's game play. No question about it. It's not about the stickers on the books or whatnot. It's precise.

Quote from: Imperator;465828Well, I've done a lot of heavy roleplaying with Advanced HeroQuest, and we definitely played an absolutely rocking campaign for more than a year, with lots of character development. So yeah, why not?

It's all in how you use the tool.

OK, seen that way I would actually agree it can be played as an RPG. Just like you can play a trad game as a storytelling/narrative game, or like you can in theory (never done it myself, unless you count WoD games as narrative games, which I wouldn't) use some overtly narrative game as a role playing game, or use monopoly and role play the shoe or car on the board, you can actually use HeroQuest and Advanced as role playing games.

Man, I always wanted to gather a bunch of HeroQuest boards, pile five of them on top of one another and play a huge three dimensional dungeon that way. That would have been cool. One day, perhaps!

Quote from: Imperator;465828I'm happy for you, and I also pretty much feel the same. Tht is why I love S&W WB, and I'm enjoying LotFP. The OSR has been good to me, as the indie games, as WW, and as most gaming events throughout my life.

The illusionism you mention is not something I find in genuinely enthusiastic guys like you: but is definitely there in many places all over the web. Appreciating the goodness in old games (and there's lots of it) should not lead us to acritically accept their limitations, and I find lots of Gygax worshipping, lots of treating 1e DMG as the fucking Gospel and it's nonsensical. Yeah, it's a great book, no doubt about it.

The problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the guy who's genuinely enthusiastic about this or that game, where that other guy just wants to get some OSR creds through fake enthusiasm. It's hard to tell which is which in practice, isn't it? I mean, you take guys like me or DungeonDelver, right? I mean, it's hard to be more hardcore about the First Ed game than Bill, to be honest. But it's always made sense to me, from as far as I can remember him posting on ENWorld years and years ago. I don't understand why people think he's a troll. He's not. He's just a guy who knows what he likes and knows what he dislikes and has no problem talking about which is which. Which is cool with me.

One day I'm going to make him admit that 3rd ed and First ed have more in common than meets the eye though. Hehe. :D

Quote from: Imperator;465812Well, of course you cannot have a story fully planned before the game, that's silly, your players won't behave as expected. But you definitely plot before the game. And that is a story element, even if it doesn't unfold like you expected. And it is not a terrible thing.

I will direct you back to this game (http://www.story-games.com/codex/index.php?title=The_Committee_for_the_Exploration_of_Mysteries).
"The Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries is a storytelling game of  exploration and adventure inspired by the pulps. Playable in a single  evening or over multiple sessions, it allows you and your friends to  tell tales of harrowing danger, daring deeds, and furious action with  freeform narration and pulse-pounding timed conflict resolution. No  pre-game preparation is required, so grab your hat, your whip, and your  .45 and get going!"

Emphasis mine.  The details are essentially what the game is about, but the 'action' portion is done.  You went to the Amazon and recovered the golden idol.  This is just the Four Yorkshiremen after you get back.

QuoteTwo things:

1) Dude, my favourite game is RQ3. Vintage games rock, and as etsar has said many times (and I agree) the fact that a game is old doesn't make it more or less fun.

No argument there.  Personally, older games are more fun for me, because there isn't the hours long combat or fiddly character options to deal with.

Quote2) The nostalgia canard is a real phenomenon: is not the only reason for some people to like old games (my own case, Ben's or yours) but I see in many OSR people a lot of mental contortions to try and convince themselves that somehow the limitations of old games are features.[/quoet] Which aren't. Those limitations are not features produced by a conscious effor of the designer to achieve some designer goal. Those limitations exist because no one knew what they were doing and most probably hey didn't give a shit. Which is 110% OK in my book and I love it. But please, let's be honest: there's a lot of ill-conceived nostalgia in many OSR posts around the web, and a lot of the "everything was better wen I was young" attitude which is utter bullshit. I'm not aiming this specifically at you or Ben, by the way, it's more a general feel I'e got browsing many OSR websites and messageboards and the like.

Agreed, and I didn't mean to sound like you were levelling that charge.  Most of the time I see it, however, it is a quasi-poisoning of the well that usually stems from an individual that thinks of rules in terms of technology, and later editions are objectively better than earlier versions.

I will disagree about limitations, though.  Some truly are amateur mistakes.  In my readings with a more nuanced eye that comes from experience, however, many of the rules that appeared limiting are actually anywhere from smart to absolutely brilliant systems that interact near perfectly.  This is my opinion, of course, but I would be happy to discuss particulars if you are interested.

Quote from: Imperator;4658121) Dude, my favourite game is RQ3.

Even with sorcery?  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;465792You always forget the "as written" part. Reading comprehension is your friend. I told you that someone who plays a Dragonlance module by the book, as written, is in essence not playing D&D. I totally stand by those words.

And those words show why anyone talking to you on the subject can ignore everything you say about it forever, that the parasite in your brain has consumed too much.

Anyway, re: nostalgia.  I still don't get why "nostalgia" is such a dirty word. Nostalgia is a good, positive feeling and a game that produces nostalgic feelings is a game that's good and enjoyable. What emotions are games supposed to produce, bitterness and bad memories?  Nostalgia is good, let's have more nostalgia. If someone says "You like that game because of nostalgia" say "SURE, nostalgia is GREAT, it rocks and is a good way to relax playing a game!"

The trouble with nostalgia value is the implication that the material does not stand on it's own merits. Normally that's not a big deal, if you enjoy something it doesn't really matter on what grounds you enjoy it - it just works. However on a discussion forum such as this there is the conceit that some we are talking about objective qualities.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465853The trouble with nostalgia value is the implication that the material does not stand on it's own merits. Normally that's not a big deal, if you enjoy something it doesn't really matter on what grounds you enjoy it - it just works. However on a discussion forum such as this there is the conceit that some we are talking about objective qualities.

I can understand not agreeing if you like a game for many reasons, and someone says it's JUST nostalgia. But c'mon people. Nostalgia is good and fun. It helps you have a good life.

Edit: The Carousel. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus)

Quote from: JDCorley;465852those words show why anyone talking to you on the subject can ignore everything you say about it forever, that the parasite in your brain has consumed too much.

Reasonable people are trying to have a conversation, here. Would you mind and fuck off?

Thank you.

I love you too.

First of all, thanks, Ramon. Epic motherfucking first post. :hatsoff:

I pretty much stand firmly with Ramón on this one. Story emerges from play whether you intend to or not. Arguing that it's not "a real story" (as I've seen Pundy and a few others do in the past) strikes me as a weak, "no true Scotsman" sort of argument.

Storygames are, to me, highly specialized RPGs, specifically engineered to generate stories which more closely resemble literary forms. I suppose this makes for a fairly different experience from a "traditional RPG" like D&D, or Traveller, or Vampire, especially when the "shared narrative authority" thingie rears its head. They are not part of my RPG diet because (1) no one ever runs them in our group, and (2) judging strictly from what I've read, I was not impressed. Sorcerer might be OK for a one-shot game,  Burning Wheel is a fucking mess (makes Savage Worlds read like fucking Shakespeare, it does).

Unlike most of my current group, weaned on AD&D 2e Dragonlance stuff, I've always been strongly predisposed towards open-ended, "sandbox" gaming. I have a hard time coming up with intrincate, long-winded plots, and I actually perform better under pressure, in a seat-of-the-pants style. I much prefer to lay out some groundwork and let the PCs interact with the bits and pieces, and see what happens from there. Some memorable stories have emerged, and continue to emerge, from this interplay, and I find the absolute rejection of "story" as a swear-word silly at best; it's just as thick-headed as the Forgist claim that "immersion is impossible".

tl;dr. Story is a byproduct of open-ended, non-scripted RPG play. It might not be our goal, it might not be the bestest story evah, but it's there. Storygames are merely RPGs fine-tuned for cranking out stories which allegedly hew closer to literary forms and expectations, by sacrificing emulation on the altar of narrative manipulation (which is why I absolutely understand why Benoist and several others feel these mechanics ruin immersion).

Did the Pundit ever say specifically that no story is ever produced from play after the fact? Because that's nonsense.

No, he didn't.

Most sensible gamers are agreed that "story" is an emergent property of a game session. A "story" is a series of connected events with some common theme. Even if you just had a bunch of random encounters, after the game session the players would make connections and themes in them.

The characters interacted with the random events according to their personalities and capabilities - even if those personalities and capabilities were made up on the spot in response to the events - and between all the events and the characters and their responses to them, players will make something up to connect them all.

Story happens in rpgs whether you want it to you or not, but sometimes you don't see it until after the game session. That's an emergent property.

None of which has anything to do with whether the story was interesting or fun :)

Quote from: Benoist;465856Reasonable people are trying to have a conversation, here. Would you mind and fuck off?

Okay, goodbye!

Quote from: JDCorley;465860Okay, goodbye!

Benoist asked me to leave, so I did! Later!

Goodbye? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tsmjkKzT3w&t=22)

Quote from: The Butcher;465857tl;dr. Story is a byproduct of open-ended, non-scripted RPG play. It might not be our goal, it might not be the bestest story evah, but it's there. Storygames are merely RPGs fine-tuned for cranking out stories which allegedly hew closer to literary forms and expectations, by sacrificing emulation on the altar of narrative manipulation (which is why I absolutely understand why Benoist and several others feel these mechanics ruin immersion).

Well, that, and some of them just cut to the chase, ie, direct play towards conflict.  Burning Wheel some people here think is trad, but every facet of the game is pointed towards conflict, not necessarily a specific theme.

Quote from: Benoist;465858Did the Pundit ever say specifically that no story is ever produced from play after the fact? Because that's nonsense.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465859No, he didn't.

I can't for the life of me track down the exact quote amongst the thousands of posts in which Pundy rages against the evils of "story".

But I'm fairly sure he did.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465853The trouble with nostalgia value is the implication that the material does not stand on it's own merits.

Do the publishers intend for such products to stand on their own, however? How many use trade dress, fonts, art, names, conventions, et al., intended to remind potential customers of Ye Olden Days, thus invoking positive associations and a sale? If they intend a product to stand solely on its own merits, shouldn't it eschew using such tactics?

Seanchai

Quote from: estar;465788You are writing plot not story.

Omnifray: "I didn't read him as suggesting that RPGS "are" stories, simply that they involve an inevitable, intrinsic element of story."

Wouldn't plot be an inevitable, intrinsic element of a story? If that's the case and if Imperator intend to say what Omnifray has rephrased his argument as, aren't you quibbling here?

Seanchai

Quote from: The Butcher;465863I can't for the life of me track down the exact quote amongst the thousands of posts in which Pundy rages against the evils of "story".

But I'm fairly sure he did.

Like most more or less sensible gamers, he's against having a particular story with beginning, middle and end all laid out before anyone even rolls up characters, and railroading PCs along towards it. He's not against a story spontaneously emerging from events and characters in play.

The difference between storygame and trad play is script and transcript.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465872The difference between storygame and trad play is script and transcript.

So, Trad RPG Adventure Paths == Storygames.

Dogs in the Vineyard == Trad game.

Totally makes sense.

If an adventure path permits of no deviation, and if this path is known to the participants before they even set foot on it, then yes it is a storygame. Not even Dragonlance did that.

Dogs is not a trad game, because it's heavily restricted. Whatever the Dogs decide is right, The End. But if all choices have equal value, no choices have any value. The Dogs could respond to every problem by slaughtering the entire town, and if they decided that was right, then they would be right. This would be a fizzle of a game session, even by the standards of someone like Uncle Ronny, and would certainly lead to players being "tired, bitter and frustrated." That's because freedom is meaningless when choices have no consequences.

The key is freedom with consequences. A trad game has freedom with consequences, a storygame restricts either freedom (railroading) or consequences (PCs cannot die or be wrong, etc).

Obviously few games are at those extremes in the rules and still less in play, and most games contain a random assortment of trad and storygame elements. Which is the way it should be, the sane middle ground.

I don't think that's a very good characterization of what makes something a story-game, but whatever.

*edit*

To see if I'm reading you correctly, by your definition, would the Almighty Amber DRPG hew extremely close to being a story-game?  Don't characters in that have nearly unlimited power to do whatever the hell they want with limited or no consequences?

He who sows "story" shall reap "story". No sympathy from me.

Crap in, crap out. A self fulfilling prophecy.

Quote from: Imperator;465739Otherwise reasonable people will go apeshit ballistic at the mention of "story" as a component of RPGs,

(1) Storytelling games require dissociated mechanics.

(2) Dissociated mechanics are antithetical to roleplaying.

(3) Ergo, if you play RPGs for the roleplaying, storytelling mechanics not only don't satisfy your desires, but may be actively interfering with your enjoyment of the game.

QuoteBut a story is going to emerge as a result of the actions of the players,

Stories can be told about ANY sequence of actions. I had a guy tell me a story about a game of Scrabble he played yesterday. That doesn't mean Scrabble is a storytelling game.

For further reading, check out Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games).

Quote from: Settembrini;465881He who sows "story" shall reap "story". No sympathy from me.

Crap in, crap out. A self fulfilling prophecy.

You should write fortune cookies.

Quote from: Seanchai;465866Do the publishers intend for such products to stand on their own, however? How many use trade dress, fonts, art, names, conventions, et al., intended to remind potential customers of Ye Olden Days, thus invoking positive associations and a sale? If they intend a product to stand solely on its own merits, shouldn't it eschew using such tactics?

Seanchai

That's not what I meant. What I went on to say in the post you are quoting from is that nostalgia is only an issue in content of something like a discussion forum  (or possibly a game design competition) in which people often end up  trying to argue objective merits of games.

So to make a concrete example, there is no question that some people enjoy older versions of D&D and that is really as far as the discussion needs to go.  But in a forum just as this you will find people who will claim that newer games are better designed question whether those who enjoy older version of D&D are influenced by  a sense nostalgia rather than looking at the game from an objective designed point of view.

In the end it's all pretty silly because it comes down to one form of subjective is given less credit than another form of subjective, but that's what we do here.

Quote from: Benoist;465830And yeah, I'll totally own up to that: this statement is based on a defined approach of D&D's game play. No question about it. It's not about the stickers on the books or whatnot. It's precise.

Cool. But then, let's be precise: D&D = canonical 1e AD&D for you. Which is a great choice - actually, I've come to appreciate more 1e thanks tou guys like you or thedungeondelver - but cannot be taken as an axiom regarding the general population of RPGs.

QuoteOK, seen that way I would actually agree it can be played as an RPG. Just like you can play a trad game as a storytelling/narrative game, or like you can in theory (never done it myself, unless you count WoD games as narrative games, which I wouldn't) use some overtly narrative game as a role playing game, or use monopoly and role play the shoe or car on the board, you can actually use HeroQuest and Advanced as role playing games.

Believe me, we did. We roleplayed our characters between dungeon expeditions (also, the game included some rules like the cost of living between delvings, and paying taxes and shit like that), and over time we generatd some random tables that allowed for many pure RP encounters. And lots of monster slaying, of course.

QuoteMan, I always wanted to gather a bunch of HeroQuest boards, pile five of them on top of one another and play a huge three dimensional dungeon that way. That would have been cool. One day, perhaps!

If you can, lay your hands either on Advanced HeroQuest (which, by the way, only uses D12s, which is awesome), or Warhammer Quest.

QuoteThe problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff, the guy who's genuinely enthusiastic about this or that game, where that other guy just wants to get some OSR creds through fake enthusiasm. It's hard to tell which is which in practice, isn't it? I mean, you take guys like me or DungeonDelver, right? I mean, it's hard to be more hardcore about the First Ed game than Bill, to be honest. But it's always made sense to me, from as far as I can remember him posting on ENWorld years and years ago. I don't understand why people think he's a troll. He's not. He's just a guy who knows what he likes and knows what he dislikes and has no problem talking about which is which. Which is cool with me.

I've never found him to be a troll, just a very hardcore guy. But again, JDCorley has ben considered a troll here and in Story-Games.com, and I cannot for the life of me see how he is such. Actually, he owns most of the bestest threads ever in StoryGames, always showing the people how you can run awesome trad games.

QuoteOne day I'm going to make him admit that 3rd ed and First ed have more in common than meets the eye though. Hehe. :D

For me, all the eds of D&D share a lot in common, despite differences in system and rules.

I have this stupid ass dream of someday running a huge mega-campaign using each edition of D&D in - more or less - chronological order, assuming that each edition represents a different age of the word, with differences in the amount of magic available, changes in the races and stuff like that. Maybe a year of campaign for each ed or so, to keep things manageable.

OD&D > Mentzer BECMI D&D > 1e AD&D > 2e AD&D > 3e > 4e > LotFP for the crepuscular end of time. 7 years of campaign, a very long stretch but manageable nonetheless, specially if you have an open table.

Quote from: StormBringer;465850Emphasis mine.  The details are essentially what the game is about, but the 'action' portion is done.  You went to the Amazon and recovered the golden idol.  This is just the Four Yorkshiremen after you get back.

Well, it definitely sounds like a crappy game, but I still can see it as an RPG.

Look, it's not how I roll and I would not do it that way, but for many GMs prepping a campaign maybe something like "We start in this area, we run some low level adventures to get them in shape, then we move on to the Big City where they will meet the CONSPIRACY OF HORROR AND PAIN and when they defeat it..."

And it's an RPG. Maybe a shitty game, but is no different than that.

QuoteI will disagree about limitations, though.  Some truly are amateur mistakes.  In my readings with a more nuanced eye that comes from experience, however, many of the rules that appeared limiting are actually anywhere from smart to absolutely brilliant systems that interact near perfectly.  This is my opinion, of course, but I would be happy to discuss particulars if you are interested.

I would like to hear about that.

Quote from: Peregrin;465851Even with sorcery?  ;)

Dude. Totally. I cannot understand the hate of sorcery. For me, it's a brilliant system, even better if you take Sandy Petersen's house rules.

Quote from: The Butcher;465857First of all, thanks, Ramon. Epic motherfucking first post. :hatsoff:

Wow, that is a very high compliment coming from you. Many thanks :)

QuoteStorygames are, to me, highly specialized RPGs, specifically engineered to generate stories which more closely resemble literary forms. I suppose this makes for a fairly different experience from a "traditional RPG" like D&D, or Traveller, or Vampire, especially when the "shared narrative authority" thingie rears its head.

This is a definition I can totally support and that matches 100% my own experiences.

Quote from: Benoist;465858Did the Pundit ever say specifically that no story is ever produced from play after the fact? Because that's nonsense.

I can't remember him saying something like that.

Quote from: Peregrin;465874So, Trad RPG Adventure Paths == Storygames.

Dogs in the Vineyard == Trad game.

Totally makes sense.

Again, it matches my experience.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465878Dogs is not a trad game, because it's heavily restricted. Whatever the Dogs decide is right, The End. But if all choices have equal value, no choices have any value. The Dogs could respond to every problem by slaughtering the entire town, and if they decided that was right, then they would be right.

Yeah, but I don't think that example is valid. It' like arguing that D&D is idiotic because some groups could play it by constantly pillaging and burning everything.

To judge a game one should go for the average or most common experience the game provides, not the extremes. Yeah, the Dogs could end all problems shooting the shit out of th whole town, but I can bet that most groups won't. And for most groups, it will playlikeany other RPG in which there are some restrictions on chargen. It's no different than a GM sayin' "I want to run a D&D campaign where everyone is a Ranger and they roam the country serving the King."

Quote from: Peregrin;465880To see if I'm reading you correctly, by your definition, would the Almighty Amber DRPG hew extremely close to being a story-game?  Don't characters in that have nearly unlimited power to do whatever the hell they want with limited or no consequences?

It could be argued that Amber was one of the first storygames.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465889(1) Storytelling games require dissociated mechanics.

(2) Dissociated mechanics are antithetical to roleplaying.

Man, all mechanics are dissociated. The act of stepping out of character to look at your sheet and grab some dice, see the result and decide the outcome is dissociative. Now, I will agree that some mechanics (marking in 4e) are more dissociative than other (a STR attribute). So no, I don't see that point.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465889(1) Storytelling games require dissociated mechanics.

(2) Dissociated mechanics are antithetical to roleplaying.

(3) Ergo, if you play RPGs for the roleplaying, storytelling mechanics not only don't satisfy your desires, but may be actively interfering with your enjoyment of the game.

I disagree with (2). I think sometimes to truly realise and communicate your character and what really matters to him you need you need be able to influence the game beyond simply physical simulation.

I find anti-immersive if the system provides me the exact same same tools and odds to save my character's daughter from the fire or pet turtle. Certainly I'm going to be more motivated in the first instance than the latter.

So maybe in real life, yeah your chances to saving either the girl or the turtle are much the same, but one thing to bear in mind most roleplaying games aren't about normal people with normal problems. They don't reflect our day to day experience. What they do reflect is fiction, or more accurately sub-genre fiction. And just like the way when running a superhero game you accept, even revel in, superhero physics, so too you want the game to reflect some of the dramatic conceits of the genre, like if you have personal stake in something you fight harder and are more likely to succeed.

And here is the thing. Maybe the very moment you spend a Hero Point or use a Fate Point to make a Declaration isn't in itself immersive, but the overall effect of having some sort of dramatic control is immersive. The next time you play that character you can look back to what he has done in play, and it makes sense. It's not just a random, disjointed series of events but it feels right and suits the character and that it turn helps you get into the character skin.

But it all you have is physical simulation then for me it's just a management training exercise. I don't like those.

Quote from: Peregrin;465880by your definition, would the Almighty Amber DRPG hew extremely close to being a story-game?

Amber has very many storygame elements, yes. It's extremely thespy. It's much more storygame than, for example, Burning Wheel. You won't find any posts from me praising Amber as a "trad" game, or indeed praising anything at all about it.

A matter of degrees, though, and I emphasise: even the crustiest old D&D grognard DM uses storygame elements in their game session. Gygax told them to, after all. For example, he discusses concealing and manipulating dice rolls to make certain things more or less likely to happen according to DM wishes, and says,

   "You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."
- AD&D1e DMG, p110
That's story-gaming advice there. If something other than player choice or the roll of the dice decides the course of events, if DM or players are able to have outside-game-world concerns decide things - via GM fiat, Hero Points, or whatever - then they are shaping things to create a particular plotline - a story.

Thus, storygame elements have been present in the hobby since the beginning. It's a question of degree only. This does not mean that a pure storygame is a good thing. A little salt brings out the other flavours of the dish better, but only a fool would eat a whole block of salt by itself.

Quote from: ImperatorIt' like arguing that D&D is idiotic because some groups could play it by constantly pillaging and burning everything.

Not the same at all.

In a D&D game, actions have consequences, and there are more-or-less objective moral standards (alignment system). In Dogs, whatever the Dogs do is supported by the entire social structure, and by the rules themselves. Their actions may or may not succeed, but their actions are always right - if they decide they're right.

Dogs has an infinitely malleable ex post facto alignment system. In D&D terms, "Was that Lawful Good? Well, if we all say it was Lawful Good, it was Lawful Good - and the Lawful Good King will back you up no matter what, and all the other Lawful Good citizens of the realm will agree with you - because you're the PCs."

Which if you put in D&D, then yes the PC could be run with groups constantly pillaging and burning everything without consequence.

Certainly some D&D campaigns have been run like that, PC actions having no consequences good or bad. We call that "bad DMing," it's not hardwired into the rules though as it is in Dogs. There's a difference between a game which can be run with boring futility, and one in which the boring futility is a central design feature.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465905And just like the way when running a superhero game you accept, even revel in, superhero physics, so too you want the game to reflect some of the dramatic conceits of the genre, like if you have personal stake in something you fight harder and are more likely to succeed.

And here is the thing. Maybe the very moment you spend a Hero Point or use a Fate Point to make a Declaration isn't in itself immersive, but the overall effect of having some sort of dramatic control is immersive. The next time you play that character you can look back to what he has done in play, and it makes sense. It's not just a random, disjointed series of events but it feels right and suits the character and that it turn helps you get into the character skin.

But it all you have is physical simulation then for me it's just a management training exercise. I don't like those.

Bravo, sir.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465906"You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."
- AD&D1e DMG, p110

Someone is going to get a stroke here :D

QuoteCertainly some D&D campaigns have been run like that, PC actions having no consequences good or bad. We call that "bad DMing," it's not hardwired into the rules though as it is in Dogs. There's a difference between a game which can be run with boring futility, and one in which the boring futility is a central design feature.

Again, I've read and run thegae and I see no such futility anywhere.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465889(2) Dissociated mechanics are antithetical to roleplaying.

That is simply not true. Neither I, nor any of my players, has ever not achieved immersion because of mechanics.
That might be YOUR problem (and from the looks of it, Benoist's problem, too), but that doesn't neccessarily mean anybody else is having that problem.

Quote from: The Butcher;465863I can't for the life of me track down the exact quote amongst the thousands of posts in which Pundy rages against the evils of "story".

But I'm fairly sure he did.

I think this is what you're looking for (from a thread that covers a lot of the same ground as this one, btw):

Quote from: RPGPundit;342685The intent is that some kind of ACTIVITY will happen, and that activity may then be turned into some kind of a story. Some may be better than others, you may end up with the brave heroes killing the orcs and rescuing the princess or you may end up with the brave heroes spending 7 hours of game time wandering through wilderness hexes without notable encounter or you may end up with the brave heroes all murdered by an Owlbear, game over.
The point is that "story" is INCIDENTAL. It happens as a By-product. The point of the whole thing is not "story", its adventure.

When you make the "setup" mentioned earlier, you do not already know how things will go. If you do, you're not playing an RPG. If you don't, you're not telling a story.
Its that fucking simple.

RPGPundit

There are a bunch of unrelated things being talked about here.  

One is having a predetermined plot, like modules for Dragonlance and other AD&D2 series, Deadlands, and Torg.  

Second is having out-of-character (aka dissociated) mechanics used by the player - like hero points, narration rights, etc.  Strong examples of these might be Polaris, Fiasco, and so forth.  

A third is the players giving attention or focus on the story that results, regardless of how it was made.  The advice text from Star Wars D6 and White Wolf games exemplify this.  

A fourth is not having mechanics or not having enough mechanics, like theater style larps where everyone plays in character - or freeform diceless games where the GM rules without mechanics.  

A fifth is restricting consequences, supposedly like Dogs in the Vineyard.  (?)  

The things is that I don't think these even correspond at all.  These tend to be vastly different and even antithetical to each other.  You can't combine narration rights with a pre-set story, say.  Games like Fiasco impose very harsh consequences and have nothing at all pre-set about the story, but are very dissociated and verge on mechanicless freeform.  

(As I side note, I think the point about Dogs in the Vineyard is bizarre.  The point of that is that in the setting, the Dogs are religious authorities - like the real-world principle of papal infallibility.  What they do carries religious authority, but that doesn't mean that there are no consequences to what they do.  Every DitV game I've seen has been full of nasty consequences for the PCs.)

I think we've all been in situations where we're faced with the choice well my Character would do a) but b) would be awesome. However even this isn't a good test of whether you're a storygamer or a roleplayer. Everyone I know takes it on a case by case basis.

Quote from: Glazer;465912I think this is what you're looking for (from a thread that covers a lot of the same ground as this one, btw):

The one and same, Glazer, thanks.

I walked away from that post (and others I've possibly conflated with this) with the impression that his specific position was that the sequence of events resulting from RPG play does not a "story" (notice the quotation marks) make, because it arises from emulated interaction between characters and setting, rather than authorial pretense and/or adherence to literary forms and technique.

Which I found silly as hell back then, and still do.

Upon re-reading it, though, Ben and Kyle seem to be right. I stand corrected.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465902That's not what I meant. What I went on to say in the post you are quoting from is that nostalgia is only an issue in content of something like a discussion forum  (or possibly a game design competition) in which people often end up  trying to argue objective merits of games.

Obviously not. It clearly has value in the marketplace, where the rubber meets the road. The majority of game purchases don't happen via forum or game design competitions and thus when publishers use nostalgia to sell products in the real world, in real world situations, there has to be some perceived value in it. At least some customers must be factoring nostalgia into their purchasing decisions.

Thus, to my mind, the idea of poo-pahing those who bring up nostalgia is off base.

Seanchai

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465889For further reading, check out Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games).

Quote from: Imperator;465904Man, all mechanics are dissociated. The act of stepping out of character to look at your sheet and grab some dice, see the result and decide the outcome is dissociative. Now, I will agree that some mechanics (marking in 4e) are more dissociative than other (a STR attribute). So no, I don't see that point.

That's not true. All mechanics are abstract. But they aren't necessarily dissociated. These are two different things. You need to read the blog post Justin linked to, mate (the link above I conveniently joined with this post).

Quote from: Justin A.As I wrote in the original essay on dissociated mechanics, all game mechanics are — to varying degrees — abstracted and metagamed. For example, the destructive power of a fireball is defined by the number of d6′s you roll for damage; and the number of d6′s you roll is determined by the caster level of the wizard casting the spell. If you asked a character about d6′s of damage or caster levels, they’d have no idea what you were talking about (that’s the abstraction and the metagaming). But they could tell you what a fireball was and they could tell you that casters of greater skill can create more intense flames during the casting of the spell (that’s the association).

So a fireball has a direct association to the game world. Which means that when, for example, you make a decision to cast a fireball spell you are making a decision as if you were your character — in making the mechanical decision you are required to roleplay (because that mechanical decision is directly associated to your character’s decision). You may not do it well. You’re not going to win a Tony Award for it. But in using the mechanics of a roleplaying game, you are inherently playing a role.

Quote from: Imperator;465904If you can, lay your hands either on Advanced HeroQuest (which, by the way, only uses D12s, which is awesome), or Warhammer Quest.

d12 are awesome. They need more love.

Quote from: Imperator;465904I've never found him to be a troll, just a very hardcore guy. But again, JDCorley has ben considered a troll here and in Story-Games.com, and I cannot for the life of me see how he is such. Actually, he owns most of the bestest threads ever in StoryGames, always showing the people how you can run awesome trad games.

I actually like JD a lot, when he's not being a twat.

I don't think he's a troll. I think he's got his own way to argue his positions, and sometimes he doesn't know when his shit stops being funny and starts being annoying. It's not conversation anymore, it just become thinly veiled provocation attempts, which I just think are best answered by a clean "fuck off" rather than anything else.

Quote from: Imperator;465904For me, all the eds of D&D share a lot in common, despite differences in system and rules.

I have this stupid ass dream of someday running a huge mega-campaign using each edition of D&D in - more or less - chronological order, assuming that each edition represents a different age of the word, with differences in the amount of magic available, changes in the races and stuff like that. Maybe a year of campaign for each ed or so, to keep things manageable.

OD&D > Mentzer BECMI D&D > 1e AD&D > 2e AD&D > 3e > 4e > LotFP for the crepuscular end of time. 7 years of campaign, a very long stretch but manageable nonetheless, specially if you have an open table.

Stop stealing my ideas! No, seriously, the "all editions campaign" is something I've had in mind for some time. I would go more for OD&D -> Supplements -> AD&D (1e) -> 3rd ed -> 4e, with a very specific application of 4e where it would actually make some kind of sense, and 2e rules (maybe not specific setting cameos) being completely skipped over because it's just 1e with its heart ripped out of its chest, so best left as a discarded corpse than anything else, but the idea's there.

Quote from: Benoist;465935d12 are awesome. They need more love.

Agreed. For my Tekumel game, For the Love of Golden Sapphire (http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=43297), I used d12s instead of 2d6 for the "Hexstat" version of BESM in Tekumel: Empire of the Petal Throne (trimmed down from the RAW), as a homage to Barker's use of 1d10 in his own games and because d12s get little love. That and I have a d12 from the early TSR milk jug plastic dice days I nicknamed Big Blue that rolls evilly. Much damage it did to the PCs. Roll TN or less on 1d12, if needed determine Margin of Success, done.

While I rather liked the MoS mechanic (and BRP for that matter), when I run Tekumel again I might flip it to roll high, just use a Best of Breed BRP/RQ mixed with Sandy Peterson's Runequest Tekumel (http://www.tekumel.com/downloads/RQtekumel.pdf) rules, or give Empire of the Petal Throne + the full magic/clan/alignment etc. bits post-EPT a go.

For that matter, I wouldn't mind replacing any game that uses 2d6 with a d12. More random sure, but it's an easy cinematic twist.

Quote from: Imperator;465904Man, all mechanics are dissociated.

No. They're not.

I'd elaborate, but it's probably not worth my time until you have some clue what you're talking about.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;465910That is simply not true. Neither I, nor any of my players, has ever not achieved immersion because of mechanics.
That might be YOUR problem

Since I never said that dissociated mechanics would prevent immersion, I'm not really sure what the hell you think you're talking about.

Quote from: Soylent Green;465905I disagree with (2). I think sometimes to truly realise and communicate your character and what really matters to him you need you need be able to influence the game beyond simply physical simulation.

I'd argue that "roleplaying" and "communicating your character" are actually two different activities, although they may have related value for some people. (The former might be one way of achieving the latter, depending on how broadly you want to define "communicating your character". But even that doesn't mean that all means of achieving the latter would therefore be roleplaying.) Check out the essay I linked to.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465946Since I never said that dissociated mechanics would prevent immersion, I'm not really sure what the hell you think you're talking about.

Whether you call it roleplaying or immersion doesn't really matter to me. Same arguement. Same old story. Same horn Benoist is blowing into.

Quote from: Benoist;465933That's not true. All mechanics are abstract. But they aren't necessarily dissociated. These are two different things. You need to read the blog post Justin linked to, mate (the link above I conveniently joined with this post).

Oh, I read it and I think is a great post. I just don't agree 100% with it. I like most of Justin's posts, as a matter of fact.

Quote from: Benoist;465935I don't think he's a troll. I think he's got his own way to argue his positions, and sometimes he doesn't know when his shit stops being funny and starts being annoying. It's not conversation anymore, it just become thinly veiled provocation attempts, which I just think are best answered by a clean "fuck off" rather than anything else.

Fair enough.

QuoteStop stealing my ideas! No, seriously, the "all editions campaign" is something I've had in mind for some time. I would go more for OD&D -> Supplements -> AD&D (1e) -> 3rd ed -> 4e, with a very specific application of 4e where it would actually make some kind of sense, and 2e rules (maybe not specific setting cameos) being completely skipped over because it's just 1e with its heart ripped out of its chest, so best left as a discarded corpse than anything else, but the idea's there.

I think it would be a great experiment, to say the least. I'd love to see how the rules of the world would change when you switch editions, or how you could say "In earlier ages there were no such spells!" :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465946No. They're not.

I'd elaborate, but it's probably not worth my time until you have some clue what you're talking about.

You know, I like your posts in your blog a lot more than your posts here because your limitations debating with people (specially people who disagrees with you) are less evident.

I've read the article several times, and I agree with most of your points. Actually, I have linked here several of your articles because I found them interesting (I specially like "Adjusting your expectations") before you became a member of the site, so it's not like we're coming from completely opposite positions. I just happen to disagree with some things you say, which hardly makes me a clueless twat or something like it.

I understand that you have a lot of experience in theater and acting, which qualifies you to talk about getting in character from a professional point of view. But as it happens, I am a psychologist in the process of getting a PhD in neuroscience and more than 10 years of experience in several fields, I can tell you that abstraction induces dissociation quite a fucking lot, because that is how our brain works, and frankly, when it comes to the function of the brain I have more than a clue on how it works. Now, not knowing about things like cognitive costs because of changing tasks and all that, hardly makes you a clueless twat, so I would appreciate the same consideration to me.

Of course you are under no obligation to do so, this is the nature of the site and I like it here this way. But frankly, answering "read the essay" is a ronedwardism that hardly flies here (or anywhere) because having written an essay on Internet (however well written yours usually are) doesn't become an absolute truth we all have to swear by.

When I smoke my pipe, there will almost inevitably be ash left over at the end.  Some of it will be nice neat white ash; some of it will be gunky "dottle" (half-unsmoked wet tobacco with black ash); sometimes there will be more or less ash left over from the smoking process.

But in no case would you really be able to say that the PURPOSE of smoking a pipe is "an exercise in producing ash".

RPGPundit

Quote from: DominikSchwager;465947Whether you call it roleplaying or immersion doesn't really matter to me.

Thanks for admitting that you were deliberately lying about what I said. Makes it really easy for everyone to ignore you.

Quote from: Imperator;465949I understand that you have a lot of experience in theater and acting, which qualifies you to talk about getting in character from a professional point of view. But as it happens, I am a psychologist in the process of getting a PhD in neuroscience and more than 10 years of experience in several fields, I can tell you that abstraction induces dissociation quite a fucking lot, because that is how our brain works, and frankly, when it comes to the function of the brain I have more than a clue on how it works. Now, not knowing about things like cognitive costs because of changing tasks and all that, hardly makes you a clueless twat, so I would appreciate the same consideration to me.

At best, you are talking about a completely different kind of dissociation than the association between mechanic and game world. I'm not sure if it's your poor English skills or your psychology degrees that are the problem here. But it's probably a correctable one if you're willing to fix it.

Your attempt to invoke an argument from authority, on the other hand, is just bad logic. Not much excuse for that at all.

QuoteBut frankly, answering "read the essay" is a ronedwardism that hardly flies here (or anywhere) because having written an essay on Internet (however well written yours usually are) doesn't become an absolute truth we all have to swear by.

And here, of course, you're just pulling a dominickschwager. Unless, of course, you'd care to quote me making the claim that the pre-existence of my essay somehow conveys "absolute truth".

Quote from: Benoist;465933That's not true. All mechanics are abstract. But they aren't necessarily dissociated. These are two different things. You need to read the blog post Justin linked to, mate (the link above I conveniently joined with this post).

*goes and reads the blogpost*

I'm not sure I understand. So what Justin's labeling "dissociated mechanics" are those which involve out-of-character decision-making?

If so, I mantain that, like Imperator says, there's a spectrum at work. You might as well argue that point-buy character generation is a dissociative mechanic.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465952Thanks for admitting that you were deliberately lying about what I said. Makes it really easy for everyone to ignore you.

Paranoia much? I wasn't lying, I was just remarking that "roleplaying" and "immersion" is interchangeable in this context.

Quote from: The Butcher;465954*goes and reads the blogpost*

I'm not sure I understand. So what Justin's labeling "dissociated mechanics" are those which involve out-of-character decision-making?

If so, I mantain that, like Imperator says, there's a spectrum at work. You might as well argue that point-buy character generation is a dissociative mechanic.

Most Chargen is dissociative, period, and make poor examples.

Justin's point, and one I ascribe to, is that a dissociative mechanic is one that encourages/requires metagaming.   That is the litmus test.

Some are worse than others (which means that I agree there is a continuum here), some are 'in-game', while others are more 'GM-specific', but rules that promote 'out-of character' thinking are, in fact, the opposite of roleplaying.

I mean, technically, this is true.  Roleplaying, as a concept, existed before these games.  And the idea is to get into character, to assume a role, whether we are talking about the theraputic use, the acting use, or the gaming use.   (immersion is the term we like).

Rules that require the player to think out of character/out of game to use reduce the roleplaying component of a game.  Doesn't make it less fun by definintion, doesn't make it a better or worse game by definition, doesn't make it a better or worse match by definition.  
It does make it more or less of a roleplaying/in-character experience.  Or That is what I perceive, right or wrong.

Quote from: Casey777;465940Agreed. For my Tekumel game, For the Love of Golden Sapphire (http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=43297), I used d12s instead of 2d6 for the "Hexstat" version of BESM in Tekumel: Empire of the Petal Throne (trimmed down from the RAW), as a homage to Barker's use of 1d10 in his own games and because d12s get little love. That and I have a d12 from the early TSR milk jug plastic dice days I nicknamed Big Blue that rolls evilly. Much damage it did to the PCs. Roll TN or less on 1d12, if needed determine Margin of Success, done.

While I rather liked the MoS mechanic (and BRP for that matter), when I run Tekumel again I might flip it to roll high, just use a Best of Breed BRP/RQ mixed with Sandy Peterson's Runequest Tekumel (http://www.tekumel.com/downloads/RQtekumel.pdf) rules, or give Empire of the Petal Throne + the full magic/clan/alignment etc. bits post-EPT a go.

For that matter, I wouldn't mind replacing any game that uses 2d6 with a d12. More random sure, but it's an easy cinematic twist.

I have a draft of a game system somewhere that uses d12 - d12 I brainstormed about some years back. I feel much like you do. I use d12 for different occasions, one of them involving d6 rolls in OD&D, you know, when you have "1 in 6 chance to detect a concealed door" that king of thing ? Well I use d12 just as well.

That RQ Tékumel stuff looks neat. Thanks for linking to it, mate. :)

Quote from: The Butcher;465954*goes and reads the blogpost*

I'm not sure I understand. So what Justin's labeling "dissociated mechanics" are those which involve out-of-character decision-making?

Not exactly. It's not that associated mechanics 'have to' involve in-character decision making, it's that they actually do on an instinctive level since the very act of using such a mechanic is part of the role playing process. Dissociated rules are those mechanics which you cannot explain in game-world terms (game-world terms, from the character's perspective, NOT some narrative, storytelling, whatnot standpoint instead). For instance the d6's for damage of a fireball. The rule and its processes are abstract - the act of rolling dice for damage, the code itself in terms of rules - but this abstraction translates something that exists in the game world : powerful magicians make big boom. Bigger magician, bigger, badder boom. It is associated with the game world.

Quote from: jhkim;465915There are a bunch of unrelated things being talked about here

Have to agree here.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465906A matter of degrees, though, and I emphasise: even the crustiest old D&D grognard DM uses storygame elements in their game session. Gygax told them to, after all.
   "You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."
- AD&D1e DMG, p110That's story-gaming advice there.

True to a point. I read up on this though, and Gary didn't approve of fudging rolls where it directly harms a PC or NPC, though - only trivial random crap like 'did you notice a secret door'.
Also note this is advice to the GM only - he never condones players fudging their die rolls :)
Where I draw the storygame/RPG divide is pretty much whether a game lets you come at it from an In Character (immersive) vs. Out Of Character perspective...I don't see why this is so difficult?
 
As I rule I never fudge the dice rolls when GMing (I don't use a screen, either), but even if I did, I'm not sure it would significantly impact on how the players operate. [someone flame grill me if I'm mistaken...;)].

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;465906"You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur."
- AD&D1e DMG, p110
That's story-gaming advice there. If something other than player choice or the roll of the dice decides the course of events, if DM or players are able to have outside-game-world concerns decide things - via GM fiat, Hero Points, or whatever - then they are shaping things to create a particular plotline - a story.

Actually that is the complete opposite of storygaming advice, because in storygames there are rules to which everyone adheres. There is no fudging of the dice, no safety net, just story.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;465952At best, you are talking about a completely different kind of dissociation than the association between mechanic and game world.

Nope.

When you are immersed in a cognitive task (for example, roleplaying a PC) and you switch to another (for example, looking in yor goddammed PC sheet what was your THAC0 and calculating how much you need to hit the orc) your brain  needs some time to adjust and get up to speed. There is a cognitive cost from switching that may range from mere miliseconds to minutes according to the task at hand. That is why multitasking is a bad idea, because we tend to suck at everything we're trying to multitask. Unless you are not using your brain to play, my point stands.

So, all RPG mechanics are dissociative. Each and every one. Now we can discuss that some mechanics (those who have a reflection in the game world, like an attack roll) are less dissociative than others (marking, which is unrelated to something the PC does), and in that regard your post is highly relevant. But every mechanic takes you out from immersion as a baseline.

Of course, you may want to disregard this due to another curious psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias, and it's OK. There are persons who still insist that the Earth is flat, or that homeopathy/astrology/tarot works, and most humans will go through any mental contortion to avoid information that may challenge their beliefs. But that is what research shows, and I'm sharing this with you.

QuoteI'm not sure if it's your poor English skills or your psychology degrees that are the problem here. But it's probably a correctable one if you're willing to fix it.

Though I'm well aware that I won't be as eloquent as a native English speaker, I work in English, I use English every day and I'm convinced that I can communicate in it well enough. Of course I can make mistakes and I'm happy to correct them as soon as someone points them out, thing that, by the way, you haven't done yet apart from dismissing what I say quite pretentiously.

And I doubt my psychology degree is a problem of any sort, specially when it comes to discuss a cognitive phenomenon like a game that happens in your imagination. You know, like, in your brain.

QuoteYour attempt to invoke an argument from authority, on the other hand, is just bad logic. Not much excuse for that at all.

That is fabulously absurd. It's like you are dismissing an argument against homeopathy because I cite research showing that it doesn't work. Since when citing scientific research is bad logic? :D

QuoteAnd here, of course, you're just pulling a dominickschwager. Unless, of course, you'd care to quote me making the claim that the pre-existence of my essay somehow conveys "absolute truth".

You asked me to read your essay, which I had done before this discussion. Of course I may be misreading you, but the perceived tone of your answer sounded to me like "read the essay and you will be convinced." Well, I did it and I'm like 80% convinced. Now I'm presenting you with facts that seem to run counter to some of your assumptions. What now?

Quote from: LordVreeg;465958Justin's point, and one I ascribe to, is that a dissociative mechanic is one that encourages/requires metagaming.   That is the litmus test.

This is a helpful litmus test, but I'm not sure it works every time. For instance, I consider the initiative roll in D&D 3E and 4E to be dissociated - it's a convenient mechanism to determine which in-game character goes first, but doesn't represent something specific happening in the in-game world.*

The initiative roll is of course determined by character stats [which can be optimized] - namely Dexterity and (where applicable) the Improved Initiative feat - but the roll itself does not correspond to any decision or action your character makes. Contrast the to-hit roll, where the same modifiers apply - stat and feat bonuses - but the roll represents your character attempting to do something in the game world.

*Or maybe it does, maybe it could - who is reacting quickly and so on. (Contrast a Reflex saving roll, which more straight forwardly represents your character trying to quickly react to things, such as dodge incoming fire balls.) I don't know. Which kind of feeds into my hunch that whether or not a specific mechanism x is dissociated depends on what one personally can make sense of in terms of x's representation in the game world. The basic definition of dissociated is perfectly alright, but it needs to be relativized to individual player's capacities to make sense of things (in the sense just specified).

Quote from: Imperator;465994When you are immersed in a cognitive task (for example, roleplaying a PC) and you switch to another (for example, looking in yor goddammed PC sheet what was your THAC0 and calculating how much you need to hit the orc) your brain  needs some time to adjust and get up to speed. There is a cognitive cost from switching that may range from mere miliseconds to minutes according to the task at hand. That is why multitasking is a bad idea, because we tend to suck at everything we're trying to multitask. Unless you are not using your brain to play, my point stands.

So, all RPG mechanics are dissociative.

No offense, but I seriously can't understand how you think that this constitutes a relevant response to Justin's blog entry. I'm perfectly fine if you want to re-define the (bolded) terms he uses, but it should be obvious to you that you then no longer offer a substantive disagreement of the position he offers (which the closing line suggests you take yourself to be doing).

Imagine reading a spirited defense of creationism on the internet, and then in the author's closing lines you find the caveat that by 'God' he meant 'random evolutionary process with no design intelligence or intent behind it, whatsoever'.

Quote from: Imperator;465994And I doubt my psychology degree is a problem of any sort, specially when it comes to discuss a cognitive phenomenon like a game that happens in your imagination. You know, like, in your brain.

On the contrary, I think few working psychologists are acutely aware of the explanatory limitations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo) of cognitive science, and as a consequence overestimate the heuristic benefits of localizing phenomena 'in the brain' and so on to conceptually understand the things in question (on which, see above). That holds especially (but not solely) for phenomenal consciousness (knowing what it feels like to experience things, from emotions to smells), the very type of thing we need to consider when explaining immersion in RPGs.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;465971True to a point. I read up on this though, and Gary didn't approve of fudging rolls where it directly harms a PC or NPC, though - only trivial random crap like 'did you notice a secret door'.

Actually, immediately after that quoted portion he goes on to talk about fudging things so that PCs who are killed were merely maimed in some way, etc - provided their players were being sensible, were just unlucky.

So he's wanting to fudge things so that worthy players get to have success. That is, he wants to not so much create as help make easier the spontaneous creation of a plotline where the heroes win the day. It's a storygaming device, just a less blatant one than usually found.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid JohnsonAlso note this is advice to the GM only - he never condones players fudging their die rolls :)

Of course. The advice to the GM is explicitly that

   "BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE."
- AD&D1e DMG, p230 [Gygax's caps]

The "participants", ie players, will necessarily see priorities differently, only the DM can look at the game and campaign as a whole and think of what's good for it.

Quote from: DominikSchwagerActually that is the complete opposite of storygaming advice, because in storygames there are rules to which everyone adheres. There is no fudging of the dice, no safety net, just story.

Of course. Fudging of dice or rules happens when the rules or dice don't cover a situation, or don't give the GM/players the results they want. When a game becomes all about giving the GM/players exactly the results they want, the rules are created to support that. For example, since the dice may cause your character to fail, let's have Hero Points which the player can use to stop them failing.

"See? We don't have to fudge things anymore."
"Actually the fudge is now built into the system.
"So it's not a fudge anymore."

Sorry. It's still a fudge. It's the most basic storygame element. And as I said, present in most game sessions, in practice even if not in the rules.

Quote from: Windjammer;465997No offense, but I seriously can't understand how you think that this constitutes a relevant response to Justin's blog entry. I'm perfectly fine if you want to re-define the (bolded) terms he uses, but it should be obvious to you that you then no longer offer a substantive disagreement of the position he offers (which the closing line suggests you take yourself to be doing).

Let me try to clarify my position.

In his essay, Justin says:

QuoteRather, I think the term "roleplaying game" only becomes meaningful when there is a direct connection between the game and the roleplaying. When roleplaying is the game.

It's very tempting to see all of this in a purely negative light: As if to say, "Dissociated mechanics get in the way of roleplaying and associated mechanics don't." But it's actually more meaningful than that: The act of using an associated mechanic is the act of playing a role.

This is highly disputable. Many mechanics in an RPG make reference to factors that are unknown to a character (your own example of initiative rolls is a good one). Yeah, you can argue that a character may know that he's faster andhas better reflex than other character (similar to Justin's example of the fireball spell), but your character is not aware of the randomness of the roll, how variable it is and all that. It's not only that the variable is abstract and metagamed, it's that it has little or nothing to do with your character knowledge.

Justin cites Wushu as an example of the difference between an RPG and an STG. Fair enough: thing is, good description, good ideas and embellishments giving you positive modifiers is something that you may find in the Red Box D&D edition. And they also call it roleplaying because, mate, combat should not be only about "Roll to hit. 17. Roll damage. 5 hp. The orc falls." You will find this kind of stuff in a plethora of RPGs, as hard and fast rules, well before storygames appeared as a movement or whatnot.

On the other hand, many storygames use the character skills, capabilities, relationships, passions and the like to decide the outcome of actions and situations. And those things are strongly related to character decisions. Of course, we could argue that then those games (Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard or Sorcerer) are not really storygames but RPGs with some quirks, and all that.

I agree with Justin that there needs to be a game apart from the roleplaying exercise in order to an activity be considered as an RPG. I'm just not so sure that the game need always to be about mechanics related to in-character decisions to be an RPG, because every RPG contains lots of mechanics that lie outside the character's knowledge. For example, most development and experience mechanics, as Justin acknowledges. So, his definition, though useful, is far from universally valid. By that very definition, many RPGs could be STGs, and the opposite.

He mades extremely good points and, as I said, I'm probably 90% in agreement with him. For example, I consider that focusing on the quality of acting (talking in third or first person) is irrelevant: you are roleplaying the same.

QuoteOn the contrary, I think few working psychologists are acutely aware of the explanatory limitations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo) of cognitive science, and as a consequence overestimate the heuristic benefits of localizing phenomena 'in the brain' and so on to conceptually understand the things in question (on which, see above). That holds especially (but not solely) for phenomenal consciousness (knowing what it feels like to experience things, from emotions to smells), the very type of thing we need to consider when explaining immersion in RPGs.

I love Chalmer's work, and psychology of consciousness is one of my favourite areas :) I like more Dennett, myself.

Thing is, the processes I'm talking about are not at such a high-level. I'm just talking about low-level processes that are widely tested and contrasted in research.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;466002Of course. The advice to the GM is explicitly that...

Well, I agree its a storygame mechanic but I wouldn't say that makes D&D a 'storygame'. D&D gives very different powers and responsibilities to the GM and to the players (or as some would say, the 'other players'). In the instance here, only the GM gets the storypowers.
Most of the hate you see hereabouts (and, OK, I'm not always the most reasonable of people either) is about how 'storygames' are a problem from a perspective of immersing in character. A GM exercising power behind the scenes doesn't directly interfere with this - making a system what I'd call a storygame as I'd understand the definition -  although it can potentially interfere with willing suspension of disbelief if the coincidences they set up are too improbable, and/or mess up character free will.

If you like, you could divide games along a continuum into
1. Traditonal Player/Trad GM    ('sandbox')
2. Storygame GM/Traditional Player (Railroad/Dragonlance)
3. Storygame GM/Storygame Player (?Wushu?)
4. Distributed GMing duties (whatever you call that)(?)

Just thinking out loud here. Anyway, I should let the main thrust of the thread continue onward to whatever trainwreck awaits.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;466002Of course. Fudging of dice or rules happens when the rules or dice don't cover a situation, or don't give the GM/players the results they want. When a game becomes all about giving the GM/players exactly the results they want, the rules are created to support that. For example, since the dice may cause your character to fail, let's have Hero Points which the player can use to stop them failing.

"See? We don't have to fudge things anymore."
"Actually the fudge is now built into the system.
"So it's not a fudge anymore."

Sorry. It's still a fudge. It's the most basic storygame element. And as I said, present in most game sessions, in practice even if not in the rules.

Unless you go with the crazy Benoist style of defining story games then story games actually only rarely feature hero points or something similar.
From the 10 or so storygames I own only fate uses hero points all others have no mechanics for taking undue influence on the development of the story save for the capabilities of your character.

Quote from: Imperator;465994When you are immersed in a cognitive task (for example, roleplaying a PC) and you switch to another (for example, looking in yor goddammed PC sheet what was your THAC0 and calculating how much you need to hit the orc) your brain  needs some time to adjust and get up to speed. There is a cognitive cost from switching that may range from mere miliseconds to minutes according to the task at hand. That is why multitasking is a bad idea, because we tend to suck at everything we're trying to multitask. Unless you are not using your brain to play, my point stands.

So, all RPG mechanics are dissociative.

Sorry Ramon, but one doesn't follow the other. I completely agree that the abstract nature of game mechanics requires you to adapt cognitively, and that this time of adaptation can vary from people to people using different mechanics and so on - I'd guess it's on the order of the millisecond to a second when we're talking about most RPG mechanics.

This means that with all RPG mechanics, there is a level of abstraction to interpret live as you play the game.

The difference now is that with an associated mechanic, this translates in instantly figuring what the mechanic represents in the game world, and thus role playing instinctively by the very act of letting your mind interpret such cues, whereas there are no such game world explanations for dissociated mechanics, in which case you are not role playing, but instead explain the use of the mechanic by some sort of authorial logic, narrative structure and bending, whatever the case may be.

Quote from: Benoist;466015The difference now is that with an associated mechanic, this translates in instantly figuring what the mechanic represents in the game world, and thus role playing instinctively by the very act of letting your mind interpret such cues, whereas there are no such game world explanations for dissociated mechanics, in which case you are not role playing, but instead explain the use of the mechanic by some sort of authorial logic, narrative structure and bending, whatever the case may be.

Fair enough... to a point :D I can think of some counterexamples, but I have to run now.

I think this discussion could benefit inmensely if we could post some examples of those stroy mechanics to see if they can or not produce a bigger or lesser dissociation.

Quote from: Imperator;466021I think this discussion could benefit inmensely if we could post some examples of those stroy mechanics to see if they can or not produce a bigger or lesser dissociation.

A classic one that I remember was when I first played Vampire: The Masquerade.  

Me (in-character voice): "How long does this invisibility of yours last?"

Player 1: "It lasts for one scene."

Me (out-of-character voice): "No, I was asking in-character."  

Player 1: "A scene lasts until there is a dramatic break in the action."  

Me (out-of-character): "No, my _character_ was asking your _character_ how long he can keep up being invisible.  I'd like to make our plans in-character.  He's over a hundred years old and does this all the time, so he should know how long he can keep up his invisibility."  

Player 1: "It doesn't work that way."  

That was a very in-my-face case where there was a clear problem of handling things in-character.

The "encounter" game unit of later D&D editions is comparable. The rules justify it from a tactical rather than a dramatic standpoint (which blur into each other as far as 4e's concerned, at least, with encounter = interesting stuff = conflict = drama), but fundamentally, it may create the same types of dissonance in play. Hence the "encountardization" expression.

My 2 cents about Justin´s blog entry (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games):

If he takes the liberty to associate the term "roleplaying" with only the "world simulation" aspects of the game, I think a more honest and coherent label for such activity would be "World Simulation game" or "Alter Ego Immersion Game", or something like that. But definitely NOT "roleplaying game" ( as the term "roleplaying" is much wider in scope than that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roleplaying) ).

And while I understand (and agree) with Benoist point of authorial/story-logic mechanics characterizing storygames, I smell a strong odor of circular logic in Justins "associative-dissociative" argument.

Quote from: Windjammer;465995This is a helpful litmus test, but I'm not sure it works every time. For instance, I consider the initiative roll in D&D 3E and 4E to be dissociated - it's a convenient mechanism to determine which in-game character goes first, but doesn't represent something specific happening in the in-game world.*

The initiative roll is of course determined by character stats [which can be optimized] - namely Dexterity and (where applicable) the Improved Initiative feat - but the roll itself does not correspond to any decision or action your character makes. Contrast the to-hit roll, where the same modifiers apply - stat and feat bonuses - but the roll represents your character attempting to do something in the game world.

*Or maybe it does, maybe it could - who is reacting quickly and so on. (Contrast a Reflex saving roll, which more straight forwardly represents your character trying to quickly react to things, such as dodge incoming fire balls.) I don't know. Which kind of feeds into my hunch that whether or not a specific mechanism x is dissociated depends on what one personally can make sense of in terms of x's representation in the game world. The basic definition of dissociated is perfectly alright, but it needs to be relativized to individual player's capacities to make sense of things (in the sense just specified).

Which is actually one of the reasons I have always used continuous initiative in my systems.  I agree with you that round-based systems that stop and start somewhat arbitrarily are more dissoctiave; but I have always used a system where we roll after an action and add it on (for the last 25 years), and it is more represtative of the player actions.

I think that your logic works in terms of how a mechanism strikes a particular player, btw.  But I think the litmus test is a little more dichotomous in actuality.

Quote from: Benoist;466015Sorry Ramon, but one doesn't follow the other. I completely agree that the abstract nature of game mechanics requires you to adapt cognitively, and that this time of adaptation can vary from people to people using different mechanics and so on - I'd guess it's on the order of the millisecond to a second when we're talking about most RPG mechanics.

This means that with all RPG mechanics, there is a level of abstraction to interpret live as you play the game.

The difference now is that with an associated mechanic, this translates in instantly figuring what the mechanic represents in the game world, and thus role playing instinctively by the very act of letting your mind interpret such cues, whereas there are no such game world explanations for dissociated mechanics, in which case you are not role playing, but instead explain the use of the mechanic by some sort of authorial logic, narrative structure and bending, whatever the case may be.

Right.
All game mechanics are abstract, some more complicated that others.  Some need more thought and work, some represent an action or a skill better but at the cost of more congnition.

All mechanics are abstract.  But not all mechanics are dissociative.  

So the amount of cognitive energy or internal computation speed is irrelevant to the discussion; or at least is part of a different but related discussion.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;465956Paranoia much? I wasn't lying, I was just remarking that "roleplaying" and "immersion" is interchangeable in this context.

Except that I said exactly the opposite of that. So either you were lying or you're an idiot. Take your pick.

Quote from: Imperator;465994

QuoteAt best, you are talking about a completely different kind of dissociation than the association between mechanic and game world.

Nope.

When you are immersed in a cognitive task (for example, roleplaying a PC) and you switch to another (for example, looking in yor goddammed PC sheet what was your THAC0 and calculating how much you need to hit the orc) your brain  needs some time to adjust and get up to speed. There is a cognitive cost from switching that may range from mere miliseconds to minutes according to the task at hand. That is why multitasking is a bad idea, because we tend to suck at everything we're trying to multitask. Unless you are not using your brain to play, my point stands.

Go back. Read what I actually wrote. Absolutely nothing you said there had jack-shit to do with mechanics being associated or dissociated from the game world.

You're still talking about psychological dissociation. Which has basically nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Your inability to comprehend that your specialized jargon is, in fact, specialized is like a car mechanic insisting that the Valve's Source Engine isn't actually an engine because it's not in a vehicle.

QuoteThat is fabulously absurd. It's like you are dismissing an argument against homeopathy because I cite research showing that it doesn't work. Since when citing scientific research is bad logic?

Let me know when you actually get around to citing some instead of just relying on your argument from authority fallacy.

Quote

QuoteAnd here, of course, you're just pulling a dominickschwager. Unless, of course, you'd care to quote me making the claim that the pre-existence of my essay somehow conveys "absolute truth".

You asked me to read your essay, which I had done before this discussion. Of course I may be misreading you, but the perceived tone of your answer sounded to me like "read the essay and you will be convinced." Well, I did it and I'm like 80% convinced. Now I'm presenting you with facts that seem to run counter to some of your assumptions. What now?

So that would be a, "No, I am unable to quote you claiming that."?

Thanks for confirming that.

I have little patience for the kind of intellectual dishonesty you're practicing here.

Quote from: silva;466042If he takes the liberty to associate the term "roleplaying" with only the "world simulation" aspects of the game,

That's not really true, either. There are all kinds of "world simulation" mechanics that have nothing to do with roleplaying. And not all associated mechanics require a simulationist approach.

These are at best tangentially related.

To put it another way: If you broaden the English word "roleplaying" to mean "any method of controlling a character", then the term "roleplaying game" becomes so broad as to become completely meaningless. Super Mario Brothers and Monopoly become a roleplaying games under such a definition.

If we go with a more traditional understanding of what the word "roleplay" means any apply this to the mechanics of a game, we discover a definition that correctly identifies games like D&D while excluding the vast "false positives" created by alternative definitions. It satisfies both common sense and common usage.

Plus it allows for a very clear distinction between the terms "roleplaying game" and "storytelling game". A distinction which, again, appears to match MOST such judgments, despite it being a contentious subject of debate.

Quote from: Windjammer;465995This is a helpful litmus test, but I'm not sure it works every time. For instance, I consider the initiative roll in D&D 3E and 4E to be dissociated - it's a convenient mechanism to determine which in-game character goes first, but doesn't represent something specific happening in the in-game world.*

I'd argue that there is an association here. Dexterity represents your character's reaction time; the initiative check is determining how quickly you react to the start of combat. The relationship between mechanic and game world is pretty clear-cut.

For contrast, imagine an initiative mechanic that said: "Just roll an attribute check using your best attribute." or "Choose one of your attributes to make an initiative check with; you'll gain a +2 bonus to all checks using that attribute during the scene."

QuoteThe initiative roll is of course determined by character stats [which can be optimized] - namely Dexterity and (where applicable) the Improved Initiative feat - but the roll itself does not correspond to any decision or action your character makes.

OTOH, even if initiative were heavily dissociated I'm not sure how much different it makes in terms of the roleplaying game vs. storytelling game equation. As you say, it's not a mechanic that you make a choice about.

QuoteThe basic definition of dissociated is perfectly alright, but it needs to be relativized to individual player's capacities to make sense of things (in the sense just specified).

I would largely agree with this. In my original essay on dissociated mechanics, I talked specifically about the ability to "house rule" a dissociated mechanic by giving it an explicit association with the game world. This is not always possible, but sometimes it can be fairly trivial.

This, however, is still distinct from (a) using a dissociated mechanic and then (b) after the fact determining what the dissociated mechanic meant. That's functionally no different than improvising a story around the events in a Chess game. The mechanical choice was not a roleplaying choice; the roleplaying/storytelling is happening as a separate event distinct from the actual playing of the game.

Quote from: Imperator;465904Well, it definitely sounds like a crappy game, but I still can see it as an RPG.

Look, it's not how I roll and I would not do it that way, but for many GMs prepping a campaign maybe something like "We start in this area, we run some low level adventures to get them in shape, then we move on to the Big City where they will meet the CONSPIRACY OF HORROR AND PAIN and when they defeat it..."

And it's an RPG. Maybe a shitty game, but is no different than that.

That was kind of the point I was making.  It's hardly a game at all.  Taking turns or exchanging tokens for the chance to add your part of the story - even when that part has some rudimentary structure imposed - almost completely ignores the game part of role-playing games.  I would suggest it is more of a role-playing exercise.  Which, again, isn't my cuppa (and doesn't sound like yours, either), but I wouldn't claim the people engaged aren't enjoying themselves.  I only take exception when they want to call that a game.

And the example you provide isn't really even close to what most story-games suggest.  What you are saying is just basic prep-work for the first couple of intro adventures, and how close the group hews to the rest of the plot is up to them.  Hopefully, the DM drops hints and provides adequate consequences for ignoring them, if that is what the group wants to play.  It is certainly possible to have a story arc without railroading the players along a pre-determined path.

QuoteI would like to hear about that.

I had a rant a little while back, so this is still fresh in my mind:  XP for GP.  Most modern-ish gamers will recoil in horror at the thought, but it makes a good deal of sense.  Not only are levels equated with 'combat prowess' or 'spellcasting ability', they are equated with prestige.  You can be the mightiest warrior in the land, but if you are continually slumming around town hitting the 'Fighters eat free' nights in your grubbiest armour, you won't command much respect.

So, characters are expected to lavish the wealth around (or have the best laboratory, the biggest shrine, etc), or at least appear to.  Even if you are somewhat frugal with it, just having five sacks of gold to spend will get you better service and more deference.  Therefore, having more (visible) wealth means more prestige (as reflected by your XP and levels).  In mechanical terms, that works out to 1XP per gp.

Here is where it gets brilliant:  you can't carry five bags of gold back to a town, and you certainly can't carry it around when you get there!  So, you will almost by necessity dispose of it somehow, but this also requires a firm hand in enforcing encumbrance rules.  That is how you get prestige (and xp) from cash and treasure.  You can argue with your group whether you get the xp when you find it or when you spend it; both are entirely reasonable positions.  I have advocated for not including gems or jewellery in the xp totals, but there is space to reasonably disagree there, too.  I would advise using the gems and jewellery tables strictly as the dice fall in those cases.  They are pretty well calculated to generate moderately valued items most of the time, so you don't end up with five 100,000gp gems.

Magic items have an xp award for much the same reason, because you can't exactly spend those.  Grog the Fighter leaves town with a crappy longsword and returns with a shiny new +1 longsword.  Success, accolades, and greater respect from the villagers naturally follow.

These systems fit together quite neatly, in fact, which tends to elude DMs and players when they ignore encumbrance or just place wildly over-valued gems on every goblin.  They have to be used as a whole, or the system tends to break down.  Which is why I have come to believe that the vast majority of complaints about vintage games are due to ignore quasi-critical rules or rules interactions.

Quote from: Imperator;466021Fair enough... to a point :D I can think of some counterexamples, but I have to run now.

I think this discussion could benefit inmensely if we could post some examples of those stroy mechanics to see if they can or not produce a bigger or lesser dissociation.

I think it might be easier to consider it in terms of 'inverse cognitive dissonance'.  The lesser the dissonance, the greater the degree of dissociation.

For example, the Thief has a power in 4e called Sly Flourish.  Is it particularly 'sly' or in any way a 'flourish'?  Well, it certainly can be, if the player decides so.  But it really doesn't have to be.  It's really just a block of rules (or code, for the programmers out there) that provides both the Dexterity modifier and the Charisma modifier to your normal weapon damage.  It could be called 'Artful Dodging' or 'Clever Thrust' or 'Blue Sunshine' or any one of a million other things.  Because you can't really describe what it is doing a) without referencing the rules block, and b) from your character's perspective.  The books says your character makes some gesture or movement which distracts your opponent, but that leads to even more dissociation.  Would a dragon fall for that?  A higher level Fighter or Thief should be largely immune.  The 'activation roll' for that power is vs AC, because you only get the benefits when you actually hit.  Which creates an unintuitive situation where an unarmoured 10th level Fighter gets fooled more often than if he were wearing armour; the presence or absence of armour shouldn't really make a difference.  And why would a higher level Thief be tricked by a tactic they would themselves likely be familiar with?

Contrast that with Fireball.  It's a ball made of fire.  The damage rolls and saving throws are abstract to be sure.  But your PC knows it is a ball of fire.  Things that are affected by fire are affected by a Fireball.  If you leave everything else the same, but change the name to 'Lightning Bolt' or 'Cloud of Kittens' or something, and you will get some weird looks.  

"I will fry them with Lightning Bolt!"  
BOOM! Mass of flames and explosions!
"Dude, what the fuck was that?  I thought you were going to use a Lightning Bolt."

Because you know what lightning is, and you know what fire is, and you know what they do.  Interchanging them causes a level of cognitive dissonance, so those spells are less dissociated.  A Sly Flourish could be anything, or nothing at all.  Call it whatever you want, it really doesn't change your conception, because the conception is just additional damage.  No real cognitive dissonance, so more dissociated.

tl;dr answer:  The less the rules in question are able to describe what is actually happening, the more dissociated the rule.

You can certainly disagree with that.  But as I understand it, that is the basis of the concept behind dissociated rules.
(I forgot to mention this can be a subjective call, but Justin mentioned that above.  Even so, more rationalisation would tend to indicate greater dissociation)

Quote from: StormBringer;466113That was kind of the point I was making.  It's hardly a game at all.  Taking turns or exchanging tokens for the chance to add your part of the story - even when that part has some rudimentary structure imposed - almost completely ignores the game part of role-playing games.  I would suggest it is more of a role-playing exercise.  Which, again, isn't my cuppa (and doesn't sound like yours, either), but I wouldn't claim the people engaged aren't enjoying themselves.  I only take exception when they want to call that a game.

Well, I definitely see your point here. I don't take exception with that people because, frankly, I don't see a reason to get very worried about what other people do. Also, I think a game is pretty much whatever you find fun to do, so there.

QuoteI had a rant a little while back, so this is still fresh in my mind:  XP for GP.  Most modern-ish gamers will recoil in horror at the thought, but it makes a good deal of sense.  Not only are levels equated with 'combat prowess' or 'spellcasting ability', they are equated with prestige.  You can be the mightiest warrior in the land, but if you are continually slumming around town hitting the 'Fighters eat free' nights in your grubbiest armour, you won't command much respect.

I always liked XP for GP, as it took a huge amount of spotlight out of combat, and made combat something to avoid, just like in real life. And it made the focus of the game clear.

QuoteI have advocated for not including gems or jewellery in the xp totals, but there is space to reasonably disagree there, too.  I would advise using the gems and jewellery tables strictly as the dice fall in those cases.  They are pretty well calculated to generate moderately valued items most of the time, so you don't end up with five 100,000gp gems.

Man, bling commands respect, too :D

Quotetl;dr answer:  The less the rules in question are able to describe what is actually happening, the more dissociated the rule.

Yeah, I get it and I agree with that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466095That's not really true, either. There are all kinds of "world simulation" mechanics that have nothing to do with roleplaying. And not all associated mechanics require a simulationist approach.

These are at best tangentially related.

To put it another way: If you broaden the English word "roleplaying" to mean "any method of controlling a character", then the term "roleplaying game" becomes so broad as to become completely meaningless. Super Mario Brothers and Monopoly become a roleplaying games under such a definition.

If we go with a more traditional understanding of what the word "roleplay" means any apply this to the mechanics of a game, we discover a definition that correctly identifies games like D&D while excluding the vast "false positives" created by alternative definitions. It satisfies both common sense and common usage.

Plus it allows for a very clear distinction between the terms "roleplaying game" and "storytelling game". A distinction which, again, appears to match MOST such judgments, despite it being a contentious subject of debate.

Ok, your point makes total sense for me while used with the purpose of identifying these 2 different styles of play. I agree.

The only observation I make is: you seem to use the "associative-dissociative" concept as a 0 or 1, while from where I sit it seems there is at least a spectrum/gradient envolved, and at worst its open to a greater relativeness.

Eg:

Class and Levels.

In my vision, these concepts are totally "dissociative" from the act of playing a role in any given world, since my mind have difficult in translating it to the in-game evironment. Its an abstaction make by the system to facilitate the gaming aspect, but one that doesnt feels intuitive or coherent to me, nor one I can relate to while playing my character in-game. These concepts make me feel like Im playing an boardgame action figure, or a wargame miniature, or a WoW videogame - not a human being. Thus, any system based on this concept breaks (or at least difficults) my immersion in a given role. The same goes for concepts like Armor class, XP for killing stuff, etc. - all "dissociative" mechanics in my vision.

Now look at Runequest: your character is defined by its skills and stats, that are defined by its previous life experience and occupations, that are defined by its parents and the local culture. And these capabilities increase based on actual experience - the more you practive, the better they got. All this is mechanically supperted by the system. All this directly associated, translatable and relatable, to my character in-game.

So this is my point: based on the above arguments (that reflect the particular tastes and vision of a roleplayer, me) , D&D would be a system based on dissociative mechanics, while Runequest would be a system based on associative mechanics.

The you may say: but youre are using the associative-dissociative terms in relation to a purely "simulation" aspect, that obviously favors more plausible/realistic mechanics. In such interpretation, obviously D&D will fall on the dissociative side. To what I answer: Nope. Im using the associative-dissociative terms in relation to the act of roleplaying. Because, in my mind, the concepts of "class and levels", "advancement through monster-bashing", etc. do not translate at all to the act of roleplaying a person in a given world - the same way mechanics based on story-logic also dont. I would call these "pure-game" concepts (class and levels, advencement through monster bashing, etc) so intrusive to roleplaying as "pure-story" concepts. And I could say the same way story-mechanics are more appropriated to a purely storytelling activity, so are these pure-game-mechanics more appropriated to a purely action figures board-/video-/war-game.

Quote from: JDCorley;465852And those words show why anyone talking to you on the subject can ignore everything you say about it forever, that the parasite in your brain has consumed too much.

Dude, you speak in extremes entirely too much for me to dig what you write. To me, it makes you come across as hysterical. Just putting that out there.

QuoteAnyway, re: nostalgia.  I still don't get why "nostalgia" is such a dirty word. Nostalgia is a good, positive feeling and a game that produces nostalgic feelings is a game that's good and enjoyable. What emotions are games supposed to produce, bitterness and bad memories?  Nostalgia is good, let's have more nostalgia. If someone says "You like that game because of nostalgia" say "SURE, nostalgia is GREAT, it rocks and is a good way to relax playing a game!"

This I agree with 100%. If I remember correctly, I said pretty much the exact same thing in the massive rose-tinted glasses thread we suffered through aways back around here.

Quote from: Benoist;465858Did the Pundit ever say specifically that no story is ever produced from play after the fact? Because that's nonsense.

I agree. I will say it yet again. For me, it's not about what happens after the fact. Everything we do, every day, results in a story that can be shared after the fact. A great deal of those stories won't be particularly entertaining or interesting, which is why I don't regale folks daily with my adventures in teeth-brushing and personal hygiene. The experience of playing a trad rpg is only one of a great many experiences that can be recounted after the fact. The difference is, story games start with the story, and focus on presenting the details for the story. The story is the focus and the point. It's a different type of game. Can rpgs include some similar mechanical elements as story games? Of course, just like rpgs can also include similar mechanical elements as tactical miniature wargames. I don't see thread after thread of folks trying to convince people that tac mini games are the same as rpgs, so it baffles me why people do that for story games. Ya'all can write entire libraries full of threads treatises, encyclopedias, or manuals and it will still not be enough to convince me and others that Lady Blackbird is the same type of game as Traveller.

QuoteI don't see thread after thread of folks trying to convince people that tac mini games are the same as rpgs

So, you didnt see the threads saying D&D4 is a RPG ? :D

QuoteI don't see thread after thread of folks trying to convince people that tac mini games are the same as rpgs

I think most people argue that the distinction becomes useless in 90% of cases because what matters is how the game is used at the table.

Because if you do look at the history of RPGs, there is a fine line in a lot of places between tac mini game and RPG -- just look at Savage Worlds for a modern example of a game that is explicitly both -- but I don't see people arguing that SW "isn't an RPG."  Even something like Call of Cthulhu, a game where most people I know have never used minis, gives exact ranges for every weapon (sh/md/long) which is useless when you're not using visual aids (it all gets fudged anyway), and uses an initiative order derived from wargaming sensibilities (is separate ranged and melee initiative really that important in a game about investigation?).

Really, I think you're overstating the difference between a wargame being played as pretend with individual figures and an RPG.

Not to mention, there is a huge difference between something like Lady Blackbird and Fiasco, so story-game again becomes a useless definition because it does not describe a type of play experience that is consistent with both of those games.

Also:

QuoteThe story is the focus and the point.

Yes, but not always consistent with what you're thinking of.  Many are constructed so that you can play your character consistently, never engaging with the "story" on a meta-level.

Quote from: silva;466205So, you didnt see the threads saying D&D4 is a RPG ? :D

Heh, I'm close to standing corrected, except 4e is a huge conglomeration of tac mini game, rpg, and story game elements all rolled into one. It's the Frankengame.

Quote from: Peregrin;466207I think most people argue that the distinction becomes useless in 90% of cases because what matters is how the game is used at the table.

Because if you do look at the history of RPGs, there is a fine line in a lot of places between tac mini game and RPG -- just look at Savage Worlds for a modern example of a game that is explicitly both -- but I don't see people arguing that SW "isn't an RPG."  Even something like Call of Cthulhu, a game where most people I know have never used minis, gives exact ranges for every weapon (sh/md/long) which is useless when you're not using visual aids (it all gets fudged anyway), and uses an initiative order derived from wargaming sensibilities (is separate ranged and melee initiative really that important in a game about investigation?).

Really, I think you're overstating the difference between a wargame being played as pretend with individual figures and an RPG.

Not to mention, there is a huge difference between something like Lady Blackbird and Fiasco, so story-game again becomes a useless definition because it does not describe a type of play experience that is consistent with both of those games.

Also:

Yes, but not always consistent with what you're thinking of.  Many are constructed so that you can play your character consistently, never engaging with the "story" on a meta-level.

The problem is you're trying to describe what the game can be used for, not what the game was designed for. I can use my 5e Hero book to boost my son up in his chair at the table, but that doesn't make it a booster seat. Also, there's huge differences between Microlite20, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and GURPS, but they're all rpgs. I see no reason why story games could not also enjoy variety and still be story games. If the play experience of a game is collaboratively creating a story, it's a story game. How it mechanically delivers that experience is secondary to it's focus, which is collaboratively creating a story. No rpg I've ever played has had as it's focus and goal the collaborative creation of a story. A story game that has as one of it's mechanical tools playing a character consistently, never engaging with the "story" on a meta-level, is still a story game if the point of playing is to collaboratively create a story and not to play a role in an imaginary "world". There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just the way it is.

I'd also say that using War of the Ring to roleplay characters in Middle Earth does not magically turn War of the Ring into a rpg. It's a wargame that's being used for a purpose other than the one for which it was created. So, no, I don't agree that I'm overstating anything.

Savage Worlds is a rpg that uses tactical mini game elements, just like D&D 4e. It's still intended to be used to play a roleplaying game, and has mechanics that support that activity. That it could also be used as a pure tactical minis game by ignoring the rpg mechanics and introducing additional tac mini game mechanics doesn't change that fact the Savage Worlds was written as a rpg and is intended and designed to support that experience.

I think a fairly good rule of thumb on whether a mechanic is dissociated or "associated" is how easily it could be used in the following way:

1. Player doesn't know the rules, but simply describes what they want to do, from the perspective of their character.

2. GM translates that into "game terms" and resolves the results, describing them without reference to the mechanics.

E.g. any mechanic that lets players directly introduce facts that aren't under their character's control automatically fails at step 1. "I look for evidence that the mayor is in cahoots with the Mafia" works; "The mayor is in cahoots with the Mafia" doesn't since it doesn't describe a character action.

But more important by far is 2. In Dogs in the Vineyard a player can say, "I call him a sonofabitch," but the GM can't do anything with that if the player doesn't directly reference the mechanics to state exactly what dice he's pushing to back up the statement. The mechanics are almost completely dissociated from the fiction at that moment.

D&D classes and levels fall somewhat more on the dissociated scale than BRP's skills systems, but at least in original D&D you didn't really need to know the rules in order to advance your character or to grasp the fact that you were getting stronger as you played more and defeated more challenges.

Quote from: Sigmund;466212Savage Worlds is a rpg that uses tactical mini game elements, just like D&D 4e. It's still intended to be used to play a roleplaying game, and has mechanics that support that activity. That it could also be used as a pure tactical minis game by ignoring the rpg mechanics and introducing additional tac mini game mechanics doesn't change that fact the Savage Worlds was written as a rpg and is intended and designed to support that experience.

Maybe this has changed with other editions, but my copy of Savage Worlds (2003) says in big print on the front cover "FAST!  FURIOUS!  FUN!  FOR BOTH MINIATURES AND ROLEPLAYING GAMES!"

On the back cover, it says "Welcome to a revolution in gaming - Savage Worlds - a merger of the best ideas in roleplaying and miniature games!" and later "Savage Worlds works as a miniatures battle game as well as an RPG.  That means you can fight out your heroes' epic battles to save the world right on the table-top!  Or you can play a competitive battle with troops of your own design!"  

I think that's what the previous posted meant when he said that Savage Worlds is explicitly both a miniatures game and RPG.

Quote from: Sigmund;466211Heh, I'm close to standing corrected, except 4e is a huge conglomeration of tac mini game, rpg, and story game elements all rolled into one. It's the Frankengame.

But are not all rpgs like that (a fusion of game + story/drama + simulation elements) ?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think a fairly good rule of thumb on whether a mechanic is dissociated or "associated" is how easily it could be used in the following way:

1. Player doesn't know the rules, but simply describes what they want to do, from the perspective of their character.

2. GM translates that into "game terms" and resolves the results, describing them without reference to the mechanics.

Like I said before, youre using the term "associated-dissociated" here in relation to the simulation of a person in a fictional world. No problem with that, really. Its perfectly valid for defining different playing styles. But for the purpose of defining what a roleplaying game is, shoudnt we base our rationale on all aspects that influences the act of roleplaying (not only on the simulation/immersion aspect) ? Factors like..

Game ("lemme see here on my sheet what weapon inflicts the most damage... hmmm the double-axe does 2d4 while the greatsword makes 1d8.. Ill go with the double-axe!" or "hmm.. for the next campaign we will be raiding the orks land, so I think I will spend my XP on this Fireball spell insterad of raising charisma);

Story/Drama ( "hmm.. this double-axe would crush the bandit easily, but wouldnt be more dramatic/cool if I grab him by the collar and make a loud inspiring speech encouraging all peasants to fight back?" or "this legwork is too boring, Im gonna throw a razor-gang at the players just to shake things a bit")

Fun ? ( "I know, I know, I coud just slit the orks throat, but I wont - I will cut his penis, put in his mouth, and throw a small fireball in his ass. Then we will see him running through his village with a dick in the mouth and his ass on fire" [ok, it was more sadistic than fun, but you got the point] ). )

Do you perceive how all these factors (and the mechanics that may extrapolate from it, be it Classes and Levels, Hero points, Bennies, etc) are all "dissociative" from the immersion/game world simulation aspect that Justin defends? And are not this factors present in the hobby too? Of course they are!

So, I agree that there is a spectrum/scale/gradient for all these factors, and if one or more slides too much to an end of the scale, than you end with a different type of game - storytelling in the case of story/drama, board-/video-/war-game in the case of game, pure simulation in the case of simulation/immersion, tongue n cheek fun in the case of pure fun. But to exclude games that dont rely mainly on the immersion/simulation factor as non-rpgs - and this is the point of Justin article as I see - sounds a bit radical to me.

Yup, I'm just trying to help clarify the concept of "dissociation" as advanced by Justin, particularly in the face of attempts deconstruct it out of existence. ("All mechanics are dissociated" keeps rearing its head in these sorts of discussions.)

As for the rest, of course it's a matter of opinion and personal taste what you want to consider an RPG. For you (or someone else) "dissociation" may factor more or less in a game's RPGness. I'd argue that IC-POV and related concepts like "association" are historically central to the origin of RPGs (though neither of those terms were used at the time). Also that trying to blur "roleplaying" with "storytelling" is intellectually destructive. We have a perfectly good idea what storytelling is. We need a word to represent the unique thing which is role-playing.

But before you or someone else gets worked up over those declarations, I need to reiterate that for present, descriptive purposes (i.e. talking about the hobby as it is) those are subjective matters of taste. The concept of dissociation though doesn't go away just because someone uses it to articulate an opinion that upsets somebody.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;466214But more important by far is 2. In Dogs in the Vineyard a player can say, "I call him a sonofabitch," but the GM can't do anything with that if the player doesn't directly reference the mechanics to state exactly what dice he's pushing to back up the statement. The mechanics are almost completely dissociated from the fiction at that moment.

I really don't get what you're trying to prove here. If a player declares "I thrust my sword at the goblin" in D&D the GM is waiting for the player to back it up with a d20 roll. In DitV instead of rolling a die it's assigning dice from a pool to become the raise that represents how painful the insult/punch in the face/gun shot is. The author stance in DitV can surely be "dissociative" in many ways. But the very mechanic you quoted seems off mark for this conversation.

Quote from: jhkim;466218Maybe this has changed with other editions, but my copy of Savage Worlds (2003) says in big print on the front cover "FAST!  FURIOUS!  FUN!  FOR BOTH MINIATURES AND ROLEPLAYING GAMES!"

On the back cover, it says "Welcome to a revolution in gaming - Savage Worlds - a merger of the best ideas in roleplaying and miniature games!" and later "Savage Worlds works as a miniatures battle game as well as an RPG.  That means you can fight out your heroes' epic battles to save the world right on the table-top!  Or you can play a competitive battle with troops of your own design!"  

I think that's what the previous posted meant when he said that Savage Worlds is explicitly both a miniatures game and RPG.

Of course. So is D&D 4e, although it doesn't say so as clearly as SW. However, for Savage Worlds (and the rest I mention) to be played as a miniatures game, many of the rpg mechanics are ignored, because they are not needed for a tactical minis game. Dragonquest and TFT are also games that contain enough tactical miniatures game rules to be played that way, but they are still rpgs because when many/all the rules are used that's the experience the game provides. I don't see how that contradicts, refutes, or invalidates what I've posted. I do see how the nits are being picked though, so unless an actual point arises out of this line of argument I won't respond to it further.

Quote from: silva;466231But are not all rpgs like that (a fusion of game + story/drama + simulation elements) ?

Not really. Some games are just games that try to provide strictly "simulation" mechanics. Of course, as wildly varied as the term "story" gets defined by folks in these types of arguments I have no idea how you might view this. I can only talk about how I view it.  Rpgs are varied in their approach to providing a rpg experience... like most other types of games.

Edit: Also, while I'd agree tac mini game elements in a rpg could be viewed as "simulation elements", they are not all of what encompasses "simulation elements". While all rpgs I'm familiar with contain "simulation" mechanics they don't all contain tactical mini game elements like D&D 4e does.

Something that hasn't really come up yet XP systems. When you choose your advancement (whatever it is) you are making a decision about the story rather than roleplaying the character aren't you? We don't choose what we learn from a situation, isn't it kind of storytelling that we players decide what our Characters learn?

I think It depends.

If you use your XP only to optimize your character capabilities, youre basing the decision on "pure-game" factors. If you use XP to only give color to the character/develop its concept/as an extension to his background, so yes, I think your basing your decision on a "pure-story/drama" factor. And the systems that makes you get good in what you practice (like Runequest and Pendragon) base its concept mainly on "pure-simulation" factor. In general though, I think its a mix of all these factors.

Quote from: SigmundEdit: Also, while I'd agree tac mini game elements in a rpg could be viewed as "simulation elements", they are not all of what encompasses "simulation elements". While all rpgs I'm familiar with contain "simulation" mechanics they don't all contain tactical mini game elements like D&D 4e does.

Dont know.. you see, "Classes and Levels" and "Armor Class" and "XP for Kills" are Tac/mini/war-game mechanics for me. And they exist since OD&D.

Quote from: silva;466174Class and Levels.

In my vision, these concepts are totally "dissociative" from the act of playing a role in any given world, since my mind have difficult in translating it to the in-game evironment. Its an abstaction make by the system to facilitate the gaming aspect, but one that doesnt feels intuitive or coherent to me, nor one I can relate to while playing my character in-game. These concepts make me feel like Im playing an boardgame action figure, or a wargame miniature, or a WoW videogame - not a human being. Thus, any system based on this concept breaks (or at least difficults) my immersion in a given role. The same goes for concepts like Armor class, XP for killing stuff, etc. - all "dissociative" mechanics in my vision.

I'm honestly struggling to figure out how you're using the term "dissociative" here. It clearly seems to have little or nothing to do with the term "dissociated mechanics" as it has been defined.

Possibly you're trying to use it to indicate "a mechanic which breaks my sense of immersion"?

I'm afraid I can't help you much there. I don't use the term "immersion" very much because it's a word that has come to mean so many different things in the RPG industry that it means absolutely nothing at all. It seems to mean everything from "I'm really enjoying myself" to "my thoughts and the character's thoughts are one" to "I had a real emotional reaction" to "my suspension of disbelief wasn't broken" and everything inbetween. Immersion is an anti-word at this point in this industry -- using it simply creates confusion instead of clarifying meaning.

But for most definitions of immersion, I would agree: Immersion has pretty much jack-shit to do with whether or not something is a roleplaying game.

Quote from: Ian Warner;466286Something that hasn't really come up yet XP systems. When you choose your advancement (whatever it is) you are making a decision about the story rather than roleplaying the character aren't you? We don't choose what we learn from a situation, isn't it kind of storytelling that we players decide what our Characters learn?

Virtually all character creation and advancement systems are dissociated mechanics. The exceptions are few and far between.

But while storytelling mechanics are dissociated, not all dissociated mechanics are storytelling mechanics. Using a point system to build a mecha unit for a wargame isn't "a kind of storytelling", and there's no reason character building for an RPG needs to be (although it can be).

Quote from: Ian Warner;466286Something that hasn't really come up yet XP systems. When you choose your advancement (whatever it is) you are making a decision about the story rather than roleplaying the character aren't you? We don't choose what we learn from a situation, isn't it kind of storytelling that we players decide what our Characters learn?

Speak for yourself.
My pc's only get experience in the skills they use.  They don't choose advancement, they become through what they do in the game...

Quote from: boulet;466269I really don't get what you're trying to prove here. If a player declares "I thrust my sword at the goblin" in D&D the GM is waiting for the player to back it up with a d20 roll. In DitV instead of rolling a die it's assigning dice from a pool to become the raise that represents how painful the insult/punch in the face/gun shot is. The author stance in DitV can surely be "dissociative" in many ways. But the very mechanic you quoted seems off mark for this conversation.

It's really very simple. In D&D the player says he tries to hit the goblin, and then it's obvious that a d20 is rolled; it doesn't matter who rolls it, so the GM can, or just tell the player to roll the die and read the number. The player's description of fictional action doesn't require any additional, purely-mechanical decisions. In DitV how in the world would the GM determine, out of the pool of dice at the PC's disposal, whether to push a pair of d4s worth 2, or a pair of d10s worth 18 or 19? The fact that the mechanics don't translate easily into fiction or vice-versa is what makes them dissociated, as I understand the term. (I've used  other terms in the past, such as "non-representational", but "dissociated" seems to have legs so I'll stick with it.)

Getting caught up on the character perspective part of what I wrote is largely missing the point. It's important, but the main distinction is that mechanics either translate into dynamics within the fiction (or world), or they function as a separate "game" whose dynamics bear little relation to in-world cause and effect, and where player decisions/manipulations at the mechanical level don't map to in-world decisions.

Elliot, what youre saying about DitV can also be applied to dice pool systems, right ?

Quote from: LordVreeg;466336Speak for yourself.
My pc's only get experience in the skills they use.  They don't choose advancement, they become through what they do in the game...

Yes, this applies to RQ as well, and to other games where "getting better at X" comes either from doing X, or from getting in-game training in X.

I cited advancement in original D&D above because there are very few out of character decisions involved there, either. AD&D IIRC has weapon proficiencies; I don't think there's much else, but one could nitpick about the general training rules, I suppose.

Quote from: silva;466347Elliot, what youre saying about DitV can also be applied to dice pool systems, right ?

Give me an example. Dice pool is often used to group a bunch of systems whose relationship is only that you roll a bunch of dice. Burning Wheel is a dice pool system but there's nothing about how it uses them that makes resolution dissociative--not until you get into the subgame of spending Artha. Based on what I've read, the Godlike system, I forget the generic term for the family, strikes me as fairly dissociative. You can't just say what you're doing and then see how it comes out, you have to match pairs and triples or whatever and decide how to assign them, which bears very little structural resemblance to the in-game stuff. A GM would have to lay out all the options to the player using natural language; it would get very messy.

The dice pool system Im most familiar with is the one from 2e/3e Shadowrun, where you have to distribute dice for attacking, defending or saving for some unexpected event. So, there is this "mini-game" of dice alocation involved, managed only by the player, and not directly relatable to the character in-game. Thus, the "dissociation". (or not? :confused: )

Quote from: Justin

Quote from: silvaClass and Levels.

In my vision, these concepts are totally "dissociative" from the act of playing a role in any given world, since my mind have difficult in translating it to the in-game evironment. Its an abstaction make by the system to facilitate the gaming aspect, but one that doesnt feels intuitive or coherent to me, nor one I can relate to while playing my character in-game. These concepts make me feel like Im playing an boardgame action figure, or a wargame miniature, or a WoW videogame - not a human being. Thus, any system based on this concept breaks (or at least difficults) my immersion in a given role. The same goes for concepts like Armor class, XP for killing stuff, etc. - all "dissociative" mechanics in my vision.

I'm honestly struggling to figure out how you're using the term "dissociative" here. It clearly seems to have little or nothing to do with the term "dissociated mechanics" as it has been defined.

Possibly you're trying to use it to indicate "a mechanic which breaks my sense of immersion"?

I'm afraid I can't help you much there. I don't use the term "immersion" very much because it's a word that has come to mean so many different things in the RPG industry that it means absolutely nothing at all. It seems to mean everything from "I'm really enjoying myself" to "my thoughts and the character's thoughts are one" to "I had a real emotional reaction" to "my suspension of disbelief wasn't broken" and everything inbetween. Immersion is an anti-word at this point in this industry -- using it simply creates confusion instead of clarifying meaning.

But for most definitions of immersion, I would agree: Immersion has pretty much jack-shit to do with whether or not something is a roleplaying game.

Yup, I used the term "dissociative" in the way you put ("a mechanic which breaks my sense of immersion"). And I agree that "immersion" may not be the best word. Actualy I just tried to show you that your concept of "dissociation from the game world" may be kind of relative from person to person. But honestly, I dont know if I understood your concept of "associative mechacanics" right in the first place. Sorry if thats the case, I may ve missed somthing. ( I think I must read the article again. :o )

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;466344It's really very simple. In D&D the player says he tries to hit the goblin, and then it's obvious that a d20 is rolled; it doesn't matter who rolls it, so the GM can, or just tell the player to roll the die and read the number. The player's description of fictional action doesn't require any additional, purely-mechanical decisions. In DitV how in the world would the GM determine, out of the pool of dice at the PC's disposal, whether to push a pair of d4s worth 2, or a pair of d10s worth 18 or 19? The fact that the mechanics don't translate easily into fiction or vice-versa is what makes them dissociated, as I understand the term. (I've used  other terms in the past, such as "non-representational", but "dissociated" seems to have legs so I'll stick with it.)

Getting caught up on the character perspective part of what I wrote is largely missing the point. It's important, but the main distinction is that mechanics either translate into dynamics within the fiction (or world), or they function as a separate "game" whose dynamics bear little relation to in-world cause and effect, and where player decisions/manipulations at the mechanical level don't map to in-world decisions.

As well as mapping to Justin's model on dissociation, I remember seeing Vincent Baker discusses this in his theory on 'Clouds and Arrows (http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html)' - further elaborated on in a podcast here (http://theoryfromthecloset.com/) (show #059). Its interminable and I haven't listened to it fully, but there's some discussion around the 10 minute mark and 23:55 on.

Quote from: LordVreeg;466336Speak for yourself.
My pc's only get experience in the skills they use.  They don't choose advancement, they become through what they do in the game...

Yeah that's not how I do it that's the default implied by most books.

When I do it it's more of a group decision. Everyone decides what the Character has learned. Bit fairer that way.

BSJ, I can see some of what Baker is talking about as relating to my comments, but his article gets more complicated than I feel like trying to decipher.

Quote from: silva;466350The dice pool system Im most familiar with is the one from 2e/3e Shadowrun, where you have to distribute dice for attacking, defending or saving for some unexpected event. So, there is this "mini-game" of dice alocation involved, managed only by the player, and not directly relatable to the character in-game. Thus, the "dissociation". (or not? :confused: )

I don't know SR at all. Do you assign the dice before or after rolling?

I'm just trying to provide a rule of thumb or clarify the concept, not give a hard definition. There are degrees, too; something can be more or less dissociated. If SR just asks you to assign dice before rolling, it's not much of a game; there's little complex interaction, it's just resource allocation. A GM might have a pretty good idea how to distribute your dice for you based on a description of your stance. With DitV you can say "I blast him point-blank with my shotgun--2d4 for 2." This is a pathetic attack. Now, I suppose the player could adjust the description to the dice ("I shoot wildly and desperately"), but in order to play coherently you still have to know what dice you've got and plan from there. I.e., you have to be aware of how "strong" your position is at the moment. But that strength doesn't translate easily from mechanics to description--you don't just have a bunch of points to allocate but a variable number of dice of different sizes, with different actual numbers showing.

An important dividing line for me is whether the decisions I make as player can be based on my character's point-of-view.  

For a dice pool, if it is splitting between offense and defense, I can make that choice on the basis of how aggressive the character wants to be.  I can make the decision to push harder if I risk exhaustion.  However, I generally can't make the decision to spend a hero point or use a daily power on the basis of what the character thinks.

Yes, that's it. With more finicky mechanics like distributing offense/defense, you might not be able to communicate an exact "setting" without referring to the mechanics, but describing what the pc is trying to do will be able to guide an interpretation fairly consistently.

Ok, I agree the dice alocation in dice pool systems can be translated as agressive/defensive stances.

And "Daily powers" feels no more artificial/immersion-breaker to me than "fire-and-forget spells".(actually, I have no problem with it on a Dying Earth´s derived setting, but when I see it used on a wide range of totally different settings, its becomes clear to me that it is there for "pure-game" reasons, not setting ones, and this really bothers me.)

Quote from: silva;466413Ok, I agree the dice alocation in dice pool systems can be translated as agressive/defensive stances.

And "Daily powers" feels no more artificial/immersion-breaker to me than "fire-and-forget spells".(actually, I have no problem with it on a Dying Earth´s derived setting, but when I see it used on a wide range of totally different settings, its becomes clear to me that it is there for "pure-game" reasons, not setting ones, and this really bothers me.)

I think everyone has a different breaking point when it comes to mechanics, immersion and dissociation. Personally i found the 4e powers system very jarring because-to me- they seemed to suggest things other than what my character was doing were limiting his actions (it just seemed very gamey to me). My businedd partner on the other hand had no such difficulty, and immersion is just as important to him as it is to me. He found it easy to bridge the mechanic and the flavor, while i found it a challenge.

Quote from: BedrockBrendanI think everyone has a different breaking point when it comes to mechanics, immersion and dissociation.

Yup. Very true.

Quote from: Ian Warner;466369Yeah that's not how I do it that's the default implied by most books.

When I do it it's more of a group decision. Everyone decides what the Character has learned. Bit fairer that way.

I did not look at the terms dissociative or associative 26+ years ago when I created these rules;however, in retrospect, that's what was going on in my head.  I wanted my system to reflect getting better at what characters did.

But it is obvious to me now that one system goal was to create a game that rewarded character actions by making them better at what they did.  Creating the character growth through their actions.

Hit points only go up by getting hit and being in combat.  Casters get better in the casting skills they use.  Social skills get better by interaction and clever application of social skills.

Not the only way to play...just the game I wanted to create, and di not know that the growth system might be called more 'associative' decades later.

Quote from: LordVreeg;465958Most Chargen is dissociative, period, and make poor examples.

Justin's point, and one I ascribe to, is that a dissociative mechanic is one that encourages/requires metagaming.   That is the litmus test.

Some are worse than others (which means that I agree there is a continuum here), some are 'in-game', while others are more 'GM-specific', but rules that promote 'out-of character' thinking are, in fact, the opposite of roleplaying.

I mean, technically, this is true.  Roleplaying, as a concept, existed before these games.  And the idea is to get into character, to assume a role, whether we are talking about the theraputic use, the acting use, or the gaming use.   (immersion is the term we like).

Rules that require the player to think out of character/out of game to use reduce the roleplaying component of a game.  Doesn't make it less fun by definintion, doesn't make it a better or worse game by definition, doesn't make it a better or worse match by definition.  
It does make it more or less of a roleplaying/in-character experience.  Or That is what I perceive, right or wrong.

Oh, you're 100% right.  :D

Quote from: silva;466289Dont know.. you see, "Classes and Levels" and "Armor Class" and "XP for Kills" are Tac/mini/war-game mechanics for me. And they exist since OD&D.

I wouldn't agree. I have games that classes and levels that don't otherwise include any rules for running combat using minis and a board. I also know of tac mini games that dont use class/level. Seems they are not tac mini mechanics to me.

Quote from: Omnifray;465761Strictly speaking they are not stating their character's intentions nor what their character is trying to do. The players are stating the players' choices for their characters.

The ref could always overrule them and say - "sorry, the mind control effect means that your character does NOT wish to attack the Lich King". I'm not saying that that ought to be a regular occurrence.

But the players are not TELLING the story. They are merely in effect suggesting possible elements for it.

Also the PURPOSE of the player choosing his character's actions is not to NARRATE their outcome but simply to CHOOSE the actions - it's doing-by-speaking or an illocutionary act (which was discussed at great length on this forum a while back). In that sense too the players are not TELLING the story (narrating it). They are certainly INFLUENCING the story, but that's not the central purpose of what they are doing, which is simply to play the role of their characters.

I don't think the GM is telling the story. The GM is engaging in resolution. "I attack the Liche King" - "You fail." But the GM cannot tell the player what the story is. Every person is going to interpret the game differently. The GM is not privileged to intepret for everyone else. Maybe at the end of the day, the story is, "My heroic character tried so seek his fortune, but this annoying and mysterious wizard appeared from time to time and saved his bacon, demonstrating that he is a spectator in his own life," which might be a different story entirely than the Epic Battle of Good and Evil that exists in the GM's mind.

In my view, narration and resolution are inseparable activities, but they are not the same activities.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;466349Based on what I've read, the Godlike system, I forget the generic term for the family, strikes me as fairly dissociative. You can't just say what you're doing and then see how it comes out, you have to match pairs and triples or whatever and decide how to assign them, which bears very little structural resemblance to the in-game stuff. A GM would have to lay out all the options to the player using natural language; it would get very messy.

Just as a side note, Godlike is not intended to be dissociative. The "height" of your roll (that is, the highest number you roll) is quality and the "width" is the strength of the action and typically is speed. So at least in its basic form, you should be able to declare an action, roll the dice, and (if you are familiar with the system) the results of your action should jump out at you.

Head shot, but not much width. My character popped one off. Let's see if he gets lucky.

* GM rolls *

Uh, oh. Looks like the other guy outdrew me, and winged me, ruining my shot.

If so, then I got it wrong, but your explanation of why I got it wrong shows we're on the same wavelength re: the underlying concept.

I originally read the details of ORE (One-Roll Engine, that's the name of the system) in Nemesis. Dunno if it had different details from Godlike or if I just misremembered.