TheRPGSite

Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Im sure someone else will come along and explain it better. But some years ago there was a big "movement" to push storygaming. Along with new terms for games and the idea that everything had to be pigeonholed into some category. Often pushing storygaming as the best, or even the only way to play "real" RPGs.

This was ok on its own. Stoeygaming had been a part of RPGs from practically the start. But eventually a faction came to the fore who started a more stringent, then fanatical, push of storygaming and tried to co-opt pretty much everything from normal RPGs to board games to reading a book to watching grass grow.

The real problems came when they started expousing a nigh pathological hated of GMs and pushed for more and more stringent rules to shackle and control the GM into little more than a vend bot. And then pushed for the removal of the GM totally. Either by making everyone a mini-GM. Or dropping all pretext and declaring storytelling as the really real true RPG.

There was also some covert and overt moves to edit facts or undermine RPGs and try to push their agenda onto other games. Or to co-op sites. Essentially treating RPGs like a fetish.

On top of all that quite a few come across as either obnoxious, or flat out liars trying to "prove" how everyone was actually playing storygames all along or how the evil horrible GM must be abolished. etc ad nausium.

So, strap in and let me tell you a story about storygames from an old Forge hand -- this is going to be a long post, and will differ from the people who consider all makers of storygames or their predecessors, Indie Games, swine. To start out, there were two movements, both championed by the same guy, Ron Edwards.

The first movement was that of Indie role-playing games: the idea that, rather than contributing to a larger publishing house's "supplement treadmill",  someone who was interested in writing for role-playing games should write their own material and publish it themselves, maintaining control over the role-playing material that they wrote.

The second movement was a theoretical one -- the infamous GNS theory, proposed in a series of essays that started out with a deep dissatisfaction with the way the World of Darkness (1.0) promised one gaming experience in it's flavor text and delivered a completely different experience because of the mechanics. The central conceit of GNS theory was that, in order for play to be enjoyable for a play group as a whole, the play style of an rpg had to pursue one of three goals: a Gamist, win against  the system, goal; a Narativist, tell a story, goal; and a Simulationist, reflect a detailed game world, goal. How much of this was supposed to reflect player preferences vs. what was rewarded by the game system vs. a weightless, spherical elephant, was left really unclear in the initial essays. Eventually GNS was morphed into what was called The Big Model, which swapped out the GNS "goals" for a "Creative Agenda" that included G, N, or S as one of its highest levels of preference (now clarified to explicitly talking about game design goals).

Of course, one of the first things that happened was the combination of Edwards' interest in the Narativist goals (and his insistence on a peculiarly rigid definition of "Story") and his promotion of independent games that he liked on his website meant that a bunch of games got labeled Narativist, and found enthusiastic support on the Forge forums. So, you had things that pushed the edges of what an rpg was combining with attempts to build a roleplaying game session that would reflect his particular definition of story: introduce characters, introduce conflict, rising action to a climax, and denoument all around a moral theme that is phrased as a question.

Other people, meanwhile, were trying to figure out what the bones of an rpg even were. Questions of who gets to say what when in a session led to what became called "The Impossible Thing [Believed] Before Breakfast" -- the conflict between the GM being in complete control of the whole game world and the Players being in complete control of their characters  -- and a rejection of such techniques as railroading, the "Roads to Rome" false sandbox, and similar places where game masters use their authority to limit the players choices.

One conflict that came out of this was the people who were like, "but I like my D&D/World of Darkness/Palladium/Hero Games/etc. game, why should I care about what your theory says?" And Ron Edwards, I shit you not, says "If you play this other way, it will cause brain damage such that you won't be able to recognize an actual story when you see it. No, I won't tell you why I think this, because I get paid as a professor to explain it." Which led to a ton of hard feelings.

In another direction, Vincent Baker of Lumpley Games, particularly famous nowadays for the Powered by the Apocalypse games, started a group around the concept of storygames and the Lumpley Principle (Nothing enters the Shared Imaginary Space where a roleplaying game exists without the consent of all of the players) and used his soapbox to push the idea that traditional GM powers could -- and perhaps should -- be divided among the play group. His first rpg, kill puppies for satan put a lot of power into the hands of the players compared to D&D, and Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World continued that pattern. Other members of the Storygames coalition followed similar experimental paths that led to at least one of them claiming that they no longer considered their work a Roleplaying game, but exclusively a Story Game. Which also didn't help the traditionalist crowd, who thought they were being accused of having "badwrongfun".

What I remember from around 2003-4 was that Forgeism was a strange cult that promised a solution to our increasing dissatisfaction with 3e D&D, but led us down a dark path, damaging and even destroying campaigns and groups. Eventually it became clear that Narrativism was a God That Failed, and the OSR was born, bringing salvation to the RPG world.  ;D

A guy whose concept of story came from a moralizing playwright put those ideas to work in RPG land and a lotta people who wanted their games to tell morals and make you a better person thought that was the shit so they all latched onto it, balkanizing the shit out of the hobby.

Games of choice were matters of taste pre-2K but now if you like Castles & Crusades you're an obnoxious MAGA chud and if you like Masks you're a cultural Marxist undermining good morals.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

It's because OSR games are storygames but go about it a different way than actual storygames. Since they are basically the same, highlighting the minute differences in an emotional manner is common.

For example,
In an OSR game,
"Yeah your ranger can track a deer." or "Well it just rained, but we established you know how to track since you were a ranger of the kingdom, so make an ability check."

In a storygame,
"You have the aspect, 'Last Ranger of my edgy OC elf kingdom' so you get a +2 on your check. Well since you rolled low, you do find the deer but it was trapped by a troll who decided you would make a better meal!"

It's not all that different. The biggest difference is OSR tends to have less rules than story games and considers meta narrative currencies an immersion breaker.

Thats pretty much the diametric opposite of the impressions I got.

Storygamers tend to push for less rules and less anything that breaks their obsession with "muh immershun". Which is normal immersion except taken to oft insane demands. Because of course.

And the old "ha-ha! You was playing a storygame all along!" gag was old years ago and still doesn't fly. Storygamers love to claim -any- storytelling is a really real RPG. Or even just doing something RL. Because thats a really real RPG too.

uh-huh. Suuuuuure.

Instead what was around from the start is something far removed from storygames as they exist now. Which is being pushed more and more towards just storytelling. No game. No role playing.  Normal RPGs can and have been played in all manner of ways from the start. That does not make them storygames unless ones definition approaches "everything on earth" which, surprise, is exactly what some of the far end nuts like to claim.

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 17, 2021, 02:43:50 PM
It's because OSR games are storygames but go about it a different way than actual storygames. Since they are basically the same, highlighting the minute differences in an emotional manner is common.

For example,
In an OSR game,
"Yeah your ranger can track a deer." or "Well it just rained, but we established you know how to track since you were a ranger of the kingdom, so make an ability check."

In a storygame,
"You have the aspect, 'Last Ranger of my edgy OC elf kingdom' so you get a +2 on your check. Well since you rolled low, you do find the deer but it was trapped by a troll who decided you would make a better meal!"

It's not all that different. The biggest difference is OSR tends to have less rules than story games and considers meta narrative currencies an immersion breaker.

What?  As a rationalization (from someone I assume likes storygames), that's still not even particularly persuasive.  Both the method and the goal of RPGs differ from what I've seen described as storygames.

So, congratulations.  You've managed to be more wrong on a thread than This Guy (granted, the thread's still short... he's got time to assert his buffoonery  dominance)...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 03:50:18 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 17, 2021, 02:43:50 PM
It's because OSR games are storygames but go about it a different way than actual storygames. Since they are basically the same, highlighting the minute differences in an emotional manner is common.

For example,
In an OSR game,
"Yeah your ranger can track a deer." or "Well it just rained, but we established you know how to track since you were a ranger of the kingdom, so make an ability check."

In a storygame,
"You have the aspect, 'Last Ranger of my edgy OC elf kingdom' so you get a +2 on your check. Well since you rolled low, you do find the deer but it was trapped by a troll who decided you would make a better meal!"

It's not all that different. The biggest difference is OSR tends to have less rules than story games and considers meta narrative currencies an immersion breaker.

What?  As a rationalization (from someone I assume likes storygames), that's still not even particularly persuasive.  Both the method and the goal of RPGs differ from what I've seen described as storygames.

So, congratulations.  You've managed to be more wrong on a thread than This Guy (granted, the thread's still short... he's got time to assert his buffoonery  dominance)...

Sorry not this time buddy. Read Edwards's essays on Narrativist, read his primary literary source, shit all flows downhill from there. And if you disagree on the balkanizing you haven't been following the arc of the usual suspects on the Forums of Note.*

_{*You'd have to be real sad to do that so it fits me perfectly}

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 03:50:18 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 17, 2021, 02:43:50 PM
It's because OSR games are storygames but go about it a different way than actual storygames. Since they are basically the same, highlighting the minute differences in an emotional manner is common.

For example,
In an OSR game,
"Yeah your ranger can track a deer." or "Well it just rained, but we established you know how to track since you were a ranger of the kingdom, so make an ability check."

In a storygame,
"You have the aspect, 'Last Ranger of my edgy OC elf kingdom' so you get a +2 on your check. Well since you rolled low, you do find the deer but it was trapped by a troll who decided you would make a better meal!"

It's not all that different. The biggest difference is OSR tends to have less rules than story games and considers meta narrative currencies an immersion breaker.

What?  As a rationalization (from someone I assume likes storygames), that's still not even particularly persuasive.  Both the method and the goal of RPGs differ from what I've seen described as storygames.

So, congratulations.  You've managed to be more wrong on a thread than This Guy (granted, the thread's still short... he's got time to assert his buffoonery  dominance)...

I don't particularly care for actual story games.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Shawn Driscoll, you know, you are quite right here with this. Your observation made me laugh a lot. I have known and still know--more than a few gamers that very much have tendencies and desires to do just that--have the DM tell them stories about what their characters do.

I have on a few occasions become wrapped up in some players asking me questions about their backgrounds, for example, dealing with various events and people in their lives. Long story short, before you know it, I've been sucked into telling them deep, complex, multi-layered stories about their characters. Such can *easily* go on and on, for hours. Yeah. I've done that. There are some players that absolutely love doing that.

Yes, I have long since learned my lesson. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So were those stories of yours any good or what Shark

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

I don't want a DM to tell me a story. I've got books and films for that. I want to participate in an adventure.
And that, dear friends, is the difference between telling a story, and playing in an RPG.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 17, 2021, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

I don't want a DM to tell me a story. I've got books and films for that. I want to participate in an adventure.
And that, dear friends, is the difference between telling a story, and playing in an RPG.

BINGO!  The DM's job is to tell me what happens when I describe what my character does, not to "tell me stories about my character."  F**k that noise!

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 17, 2021, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

I don't want a DM to tell me a story. I've got books and films for that. I want to participate in an adventure.
And that, dear friends, is the difference between telling a story, and playing in an RPG.

1000% agreed, plus RPGs are a very bad tool for telling stories, but a great one for making history in the game world.

It's one thing to sit down to write about a fisherman and a fisherman telling you about his fishing stories.

The first is the storygamer, the second is the RPG player (or DM) telling you what hapened in the session/campaign.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 16, 2021, 06:12:18 PM
Short version:  Why all the hate for "storygames" and associated things on this forum?

I'm a relative newbie here, and I have been noticing references to "storygames" and past conflicts, and was just wondering what it was all about?  I've seen the term in various places refer to RPG-like games where players have some narrative control, collaborative writing projects with a few rules, freeform roleplaying with total GM control -no dice or rules- and lots of things in between.  What does it mean here?  And why all the vitriol?  Also, The Forge.  I read a lot of their stuff, and while I didn't buy into all of their theories, they did have some useful ideas and it made me think more deeply about my own methods of gaming, which is always a good thing, so why the hate?

Not trying to stir anything up here, I'm just very curious.

From where I sit, it seems an awful lot like some people would rather just make up new terms and definitions than just say, "Hey, here's how I like to play."

It's fairly common after a very enjoyable session of good old fashioned D&D that you might hear players talk about how awesome the story was. There's nothing new or foreign about stories in traditional RPGs. If you get your enjoyment primarily out of the story rather than the action, just say that.

And so some then say, "Well, but the emphasis isn't on story." But of course plenty of D&D campaigns are and have been for a long, long time. If you want more story and less hack-n-slay, just say that.

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung) correlates to the anatomy of human action (per von Mises) so that virtually any series of things that happens is technically a story. Drunken fart literature professors do not own that word. If you like a particular type of story, just say that.

And so then they say, "Well, but that's the GM's story. It's not collaborative." But of course good ol' D&D is collaborative, and decisions players make shape and create the story. If you want to take a more pro-active role as a player in crafting the direction of the campaign and lean less on metaplots or pre-determined story lines, then just say that. I'm sure you'll find a lot of agreement there.

So then it becomes, "Well, but they aren't shaping the story directly. They're limited to what their character can do." This, of course, ignores the fact that plenty of traditional RPGs have "metacurrency" that allows the player to shape the game in other ways. And even AD&D 1E, if you do a deep dive into it, you start to find it's everywhere, though subtle. And it's like, if you prefer to metagame to shape the story rather than get stuck in character, just say that.

Basically, the nature of my beef is, if you spent your time trying to communicate what you like rather than obscuring communication with jargon, and if you redirect your effort into finding ways to have your fun rather than finding excuses as to why you can't, we'd all be better off.

And my beef does cut both ways, too. I have heard some absolutely absurd bullshit in the past couple of years as to what constitutes a "sandbox." Most of the criteria I hear people come up with to define or characterize a sandbox I have found plenty of counterexamples in my extensive experience running sandboxes.


Basically, what I think the story is is something like this: Once upon a time, the world became sufficiently civilized to the point where nerds no longer got beat up for their lunch money. Vanquishing the villainous bullies seemed a good idea at the time. Little did we know, eliminating this natural predator would open a Pandora's Box of dysfunction. You see, nerds got picked on because they were weak. And they were weak because they were lacking in virtue. Left unchecked, cowardice, dishonesty, and social ineptitude ran amok.

One of the things that emerged from this pathological nerd-dom is definition diarrhea. Got a stupid idea? Sure. We all do. If you're virtuous, you have the courage to put it out there, it gets challenged, you have the social IQ to try to understand other's points of view, you're honest enough concede (at least to yourself) your idea's flaws, you tweak it, and maybe over time it evolves and grows into a really good idea. But if you're a coward, if you're dishonest, and if you don't care about forming bridges with people with different points of view, you insulate it from critique. And one handy way of avoiding contending with the world is to just define the world away.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM
And one handy way of avoiding contending with the world is to just define the world away.

Hardly unique to nerds. Pretty much a definition of modern academia! Some academics are nerds, but we have plenty of hipsters, too.  ;D

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

The usual guy with Freudian problems...  ;D

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM
And so then they say, "Well, but that's the GM's story. It's not collaborative." But of course good ol' D&D is collaborative, and decisions players make shape and create the story.

Not to mention how real life sometimes is just like that.

"The IRS fines you for something you never did with a company you never owned." That's the start of the adventure the "Real Life Keeper" threw at you. You choose what you do but who you meet in various offices, the bureaucratic obstacles, the availability of a lawyer and how good he is are all parts of the "story" you have no control on. Just think how common is both for you and your friends to say: "You won't believe what happened to me. Last week I got this call..." It is just part of the human experience.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

His standards are too high to fuck you.

RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story. In conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic and can revise the story up to and even past the point of publication. In RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator. The result is... well, just look at Darths & Droids for an example.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 18, 2021, 01:09:15 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 12:31:48 AM

"But you're not exploring themes" or some other pretentious literature jargon. And I have to point out that the anatomy of a story (per Jung)

Fuck Jung

His standards are too high to fuck you.

Who cares if I'm the one to do it, somebody should fuck him. Preferably somebody with syphilis. Where's Brad?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story. In conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic and can revise the story up to and even past the point of publication. In RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator. The result is... well, just look at Darths & Droids for an example.

Don't really want coherent stories anyway, because I know how they end which leaves things down to style and execution which, let's be real sucks shit at the average table, even yours. Incoherency is best in game design and plotting.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:57:53 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Anima/Animus and the collective unconscious have nothing to do with RPGs, but thanks for participating.  ::)

Quote from: Reckall on April 18, 2021, 03:55:54 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:57:53 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Anima/Animus and the collective unconscious have nothing to do with RPGs, but thanks for participating.  ::)

I mean I agree which is why using archetypes like that is a shit model since Jungian archetypes spring from the collective unconscious. If you just mean that those bits are wrong and you use archetypes as storytelling shorthand from colloquial usage then why even bring Jung into it, mixing your theories and shit.

Ultimately, storygames are just rpgs that try to emphasis story elements of games by various means in their actual rules. That, of course, leaves quit a lot to individual interpretation as just what games are storygames.
As for the vitriol, I find it bizarre. Its hardly as though they are taking over the industry, and if you don't like them, don't play them. Problem solved.

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 04:37:54 PM

Quote from: Reckall on April 18, 2021, 03:55:54 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:57:53 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 18, 2021, 10:39:31 AM

Quote from: This Guy on April 18, 2021, 01:11:29 AM
Fuck Jung

Freud was the hack with the sex hang ups.

Jung clarifed the concept of archetypal events and persons that are useful for devising events and NPCs, so at least he provided something useful to rpgs.

If we're looking at usefulness in rpgs Freud's unheimlich has been way more useful to me than any garbage related to anima/animus and collective unconscious. Just some proto-Campbell garbage without the bad anthropology.

Anima/Animus and the collective unconscious have nothing to do with RPGs, but thanks for participating.  ::)

I mean I agree which is why using archetypes like that is a shit model since Jungian archetypes spring from the collective unconscious.

Er... One thing doesn't lead to the other anyway... ::)

As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off. Every day, a new jackass would come along telling gamers that they were brain damaged and playing their favorite RPG only out of nostalgia. It got on your nerves and earned plenty of responses of "go fuck yourself".  Like the current SJWs, gamers only have pushback after it became obvious that these storygames advocates would not just live and let live.

Did Jung even exist, or was he just an archetype?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 18, 2021, 08:20:13 PM
Did Jung even exist, or was he just an archetype?

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/02/68/87/0268871f55ef32809b9f02c83ab1dc23.gif)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story.

Well, I can give an easy example that shows clearly the RPGs have some real strengths in telling stories.

Knight slays dragon, rescues princess, and they live happily ever after. Old story. Hardly interesting. A jaded audience will probably roll their eyes at the predictable happy ending.

With an RPG, because we see the rules and stats and dice rolls, we know there actually is a chance that the knight fails. We know the knight actually is in danger. We know the dragon could flash fry then eat the knight. And so suddenly that old story can capture renewed interest. Should the ending not turn out to be the predictable happy one, then at least we've done something different. But even if the ending ends up being the happy, predictable ending, that we know it really, really could have turned out differently gives that story renewed power.

So that makes me question what you mean by "coherent"? Because there is no shortage of examples to point to as to how gamers, GMs in particular, go to a nutty level of obsession to ensure that their games are coherent, per the standard definition, to a degree that in a lot of cases may actually go far beyond what you find in a traditional authored work.

QuoteIn conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic

Not always. Some authors deliberately seek to liberate their characters from the tyranny of the narrative. Styles vary. Tastes vary.

QuoteIn RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator.

I've encountered plenty of examples where there is some curating process. Like the old 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D where, when the results are in, the DM describes how the round unfolds, or else allows the players to do so in cases such as killing blows or critical hits. Again, styles vary, tastes vary.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story.

Well, I can give an easy example that shows clearly the RPGs have some real strengths in telling stories.

Knight slays dragon, rescues princess, and they live happily ever after. Old story. Hardly interesting. A jaded audience will probably roll their eyes at the predictable happy ending.

With an RPG, because we see the rules and stats and dice rolls, we know there actually is a chance that the knight fails. We know the knight actually is in danger. We know the dragon could flash fry then eat the knight. And so suddenly that old story can capture renewed interest. Should the ending not turn out to be the predictable happy one, then at least we've done something different. But even if the ending ends up being the happy, predictable ending, that we know it really, really could have turned out differently gives that story renewed power.

So that makes me question what you mean by "coherent"? Because there is no shortage of examples to point to as to how gamers, GMs in particular, go to a nutty level of obsession to ensure that their games are coherent, per the standard definition, to a degree that in a lot of cases may actually go far beyond what you find in a traditional authored work.

QuoteIn conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic

Not always. Some authors deliberately seek to liberate their characters from the tyranny of the narrative. Styles vary. Tastes vary.

QuoteIn RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator.

I've encountered plenty of examples where there is some curating process. Like the old 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D where, when the results are in, the DM describes how the round unfolds, or else allows the players to do so in cases such as killing blows or critical hits. Again, styles vary, tastes vary.

How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

The DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact, doesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so, willingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 18, 2021, 08:17:56 PM
As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off. Every day, a new jackass would come along telling gamers that they were brain damaged and playing their favorite RPG only out of nostalgia. It got on your nerves and earned plenty of responses of "go fuck yourself".  Like the current SJWs, gamers only have pushback after it became obvious that these storygames advocates would not just live and let live.

IME Storygamers are like the vegans.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 18, 2021, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 18, 2021, 01:33:15 PM
RPGs are a terrible format for telling any kind of coherent story.

Well, I can give an easy example that shows clearly the RPGs have some real strengths in telling stories.

Knight slays dragon, rescues princess, and they live happily ever after. Old story. Hardly interesting. A jaded audience will probably roll their eyes at the predictable happy ending.

With an RPG, because we see the rules and stats and dice rolls, we know there actually is a chance that the knight fails. We know the knight actually is in danger. We know the dragon could flash fry then eat the knight. And so suddenly that old story can capture renewed interest. Should the ending not turn out to be the predictable happy one, then at least we've done something different. But even if the ending ends up being the happy, predictable ending, that we know it really, really could have turned out differently gives that story renewed power.

So that makes me question what you mean by "coherent"? Because there is no shortage of examples to point to as to how gamers, GMs in particular, go to a nutty level of obsession to ensure that their games are coherent, per the standard definition, to a degree that in a lot of cases may actually go far beyond what you find in a traditional authored work.

QuoteIn conventional stories, events happens because the writer decides they should because of narrative logic

Not always. Some authors deliberately seek to liberate their characters from the tyranny of the narrative. Styles vary. Tastes vary.

QuoteIn RPGs, events unfold thru a combination of multiple players' choices and a random number generator.

I've encountered plenty of examples where there is some curating process. Like the old 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D where, when the results are in, the DM describes how the round unfolds, or else allows the players to do so in cases such as killing blows or critical hits. Again, styles vary, tastes vary.

How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

The DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact, doesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so, willingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

The storygamer's is probably more interesting to read than another fucking story about another fucking fishing trip.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:57:26 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 18, 2021, 08:17:56 PM
As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off. Every day, a new jackass would come along telling gamers that they were brain damaged and playing their favorite RPG only out of nostalgia. It got on your nerves and earned plenty of responses of "go fuck yourself".  Like the current SJWs, gamers only have pushback after it became obvious that these storygames advocates would not just live and let live.

IME Storygamers are like the vegans.

Good comparison, for both good and ill.  For all who "adopt the lifestyle" out of a genuine enjoyment and appreciation for the thing, there will be others who ape them for the surface stuff.  The reasons are legion, but the symptoms are similar.  Someone who merely enjoyed story games as a thing would be interested in sharing it with you if you were interested, but not threatened if you weren't.  They might be a little overly enthusiastic about it, then back off when they saw you weren't interested.  The insecure can't afford to back off, because it is all posing.

Of course, when RPGs got started, there was some similar process, too.  The more niche and acquired the tastes, however, the less likely that others will be interested and the more likely that the posers will stand as representative of the whole.

The question is: are you having fun?

If yes, who cares?

Complaining about wrongfun is for socjus pansies.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

How isn't it?

QuoteThe DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact,

They might. And some might do it more than others. But I don't see an awful lot of that. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

Quotedoesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

You're right. Your random irrelevant statement does not logically lead us to the conclude that RPGs are built for or good at telling stories. That doesn't preclude the possibility that a more accurate characterization of an RPG wouldn't get us there.

QuoteStorygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I don't even see very much of either thing. I don't see self-ascribed story gamers saying that what they're doing is sitting down to write a story. I don't see roleplaying gamers saying that what they do at their weekly game is sit around telling stories about what happened last week. Your statements just don't seem relevant to anything. They certainly don't justify the use of the equal sign.

QuoteI know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so,

I see the difference. What I don't see is you raising anything relevant.

Quotewillingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

This is a strange statement coming from someone who has presented facts (if you can even call them that) cherry picked to such an extreme that it's down to things that have nothing to do with anything.

How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM
How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

This is why I avoid using the word Story to describe RPGs. I prefer the term Scenario.
A story has a preset path and usually only one author. (Multiple authors are possible, but doesn't typically change the nature of storytelling)
We are not playing out a story of a character attempting to slay a dragon. We are participaing in a scenario where the resolution of the scenario is open ended enough so that slaying the dragon isn't necessarily it.

We can negotiate with the dragon. We can drive it away. We can join forces with the dragon. We can try to bribe the dragon to go away. We can fail to slay the dragon and get killed by it. We can pull a draw, constantly fighting the dragon but neither side gains a clear advantage.

The GM decides if such tactics are possible, and what needs to be done to accomplish any of them, and the consequences of success or failure.
The potential open ended nature of a scenario, and the input of a group of player characters, is what differentiates an RPG from a story, and trying to hammer such scenario driven play into a story telling hole is how we get linear adventures with "rail roading" GM tactics.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

How isn't it?

QuoteThe DM/Gamers might tell recounts of the adventure after the fact,

They might. And some might do it more than others. But I don't see an awful lot of that. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

Quotedoesn't mean the RPG is built for telling stories nor that it's any good for it.

You're right. Your random irrelevant statement does not logically lead us to the conclude that RPGs are built for or good at telling stories. That doesn't preclude the possibility that a more accurate characterization of an RPG wouldn't get us there.

QuoteStorygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

RPG player = Some fisherman telling a story of his last fishing trip.

I don't even see very much of either thing. I don't see self-ascribed story gamers saying that what they're doing is sitting down to write a story. I don't see roleplaying gamers saying that what they do at their weekly game is sit around telling stories about what happened last week. Your statements just don't seem relevant to anything. They certainly don't justify the use of the equal sign.

QuoteI know you won't see the difference because you refuse to do so,

I see the difference. What I don't see is you raising anything relevant.

Quotewillingly blinding yourself to all and any evidence that contradicts your ideology/point of view.

This is a strange statement coming from someone who has presented facts (if you can even call them that) cherry picked to such an extreme that it's down to things that have nothing to do with anything.

How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

"RPG gamers don't sit around the table at game day to re tell the story about their last session so you're wrong!"

We also don't sit around a table to tell any story, we sit to go have adventures in a virtual world as our avatars, and might tell stories about what happened there afterwards to those who weren't there, or among ourselves while not playing remembering how fun/silly/lucky/stupid X was.

The GOAL isn't to tell a story but to make history, to have an impact on the virtual world.

While storygamers do have the goal to tell a story while sitting at the table, to collectivelly build the world around them.

And this is true no matter if the tale told is about fishermen or dragon slayers, but thanks for participating and proving my point that you're willingly blind to the facts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 11:50:25 AM
And this is true no matter if the tale told is about fishermen or dragon slayers, but thanks for participating and proving my point that you're willingly blind to the facts.

proving to whom

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 11:38:42 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM
How about instead of a fisherman, it's a dragon slayer?

And how about instead of writing a story about a dragon slayer (which I don't know is something self-ascribed story gamers actually do), and instead of telling a story of the last dragon you slew (which is not something I've seen an RPG player do as part of playing the game), we talk about what actually goes on in these games?

Something like, we play out the story of the character attempting to slay a dragon.

You can run through this scenario in any number of systems and get radically different play experiences through each of them. I don't know where you get this idea that I'm claiming there is no difference. Hell, even the same system with different players will vary greatly in the experience. We still recognize they're playing the same game despite the differences. Because what's in common also matters.

This is why I avoid using the word Story to describe RPGs. I prefer the term Scenario.
A story has a preset path and usually only one author. (Multiple authors are possible, but doesn't typically change the nature of storytelling)
We are not playing out a story of a character attempting to slay a dragon. We are participaing in a scenario where the resolution of the scenario is open ended enough so that slaying the dragon isn't necessarily it.

We can negotiate with the dragon. We can drive it away. We can join forces with the dragon. We can try to bribe the dragon to go away. We can fail to slay the dragon and get killed by it. We can pull a draw, constantly fighting the dragon but neither side gains a clear advantage.

The GM decides if such tactics are possible, and what needs to be done to accomplish any of them, and the consequences of success or failure.
The potential open ended nature of a scenario, and the input of a group of player characters, is what differentiates an RPG from a story, and trying to hammer such scenario driven play into a story telling hole is how we get linear adventures with "rail roading" GM tactics.

Let me tell you a story about the last session of the campaign I'm playing in:

We were hired to go search for a very old (millenia?) wizard's lair, he is guilty of a magical catastrofe of huge magnitude for trying to summon extraplannar beings into the world.

We were at the deepest level after many adventures and having to go outside once to deliver some children to their parents, we found out the wizard was suppossedly being guarded by a Bronze Dragon who as suppossedly preventing him from continuing his magical experiments by a floating skull that the wizard used to speak to us.

Went down there, found a smallish green dragon, Duncan (my pyromaniac shoot first ask questions latter) wizard character went and talked with it and then got out and used a magical headband our Elf has to teplepatically discuss things between us.

Went back and managed to make the Dragon reveal he was infact the Bronze Dragon testing us, that he was indeed busy guarding the wizard and preventing his shenanigans, made a deal with it, got out with all the treasure (coin, jewels, magic stuff and many, many books) after closing/collapsing most of the ways in/out and then collapsed the main one so no one can go try to liberate the wizard.

Our DM was pleasantly surprized we choose to talk, that we used the headband so the Dragon couldn't hear us, and that we accomplished our goal (to prevent anyone from either liberating or getting the wizard's experiments) without fighting.

We weren't telling a story, we were making history, having an impact in the world, the ending was a surprize to all. Knowing the wizard was millenia old I was fully convinced we were going to die there if we found him.

After finding about the dragon I was convinced he was going to kill us.

Well, turns out we didn't die, got loot and will grow more famous in our corner of the world.

There was a beggining, we were offered the contract, but we could have refused it, after all it seemed well above our pay grade. After that? Everything that happened was our choice, we fought when we choose to and ran when we choose to, we solved potential conflicts (more than once) with diplomacy when we could, and we came out alive, richer, and more powerful.

None of that was something any of us could have predicted, so there was no middle and the end wasn't planned.

Where was this famous "STORY" while we were playing?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:33:12 AM
The question is: are you having fun?

If yes, who cares?

Complaining about wrongfun is for socjus pansies.

Good point, except most of us aren't doing that, we're arguing that RPGs aren't built to, good at or used to tell a story while sitting at the table at game day.

In the things that were happening as they happened because story is not tied to past.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 12:10:45 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:33:12 AM
The question is: are you having fun?

If yes, who cares?

Complaining about wrongfun is for socjus pansies.

Good point, except most of us aren't doing that, we're arguing that RPGs aren't built to, good at or used to tell a story while sitting at the table at game day.

Short form: I disagree.

Long form: There's more than one way to tell a story. I suspect what a lot of people here object to is less the story aspect, and more the attempts to screw with the GM-player dynamic as well as the tendency for random chance to throw things for a loop. 'Oh noez, we can't have this rely on Joe making his Diplomacy check, that's not -narrative-' or somesuch.

Which I totally sympathize with, for what it's worth. The point of the game is that random chance enters the fray. Granted, you allow the players (as GM) to 'load the dice' a bit with their sheet bonuses as well as roleplaying well (remember, the big 'R' in RPG?). And it makes for great tales to tell later on.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 11:38:42 AM
This is why I avoid using the word Story to describe RPGs. I prefer the term Scenario.
A story has a preset path and usually only one author. (Multiple authors are possible, but doesn't typically change the nature of storytelling)
We are not playing out a story of a character attempting to slay a dragon. We are participaing in a scenario where the resolution of the scenario is open ended enough so that slaying the dragon isn't necessarily it.

You can use whichever word you prefer. I would point out though that in the part of my post you quoted, I also used the word "scenario" and was using the two words interchangeably. Among the various dictionary definitions, "the plot of a dramatic work" is one that applicable to both words. So if you're drawing a distinction between the two words, you simply aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about.

QuoteThe potential open ended nature of a scenario, and the input of a group of player characters, is what differentiates an RPG from a story, and trying to hammer such scenario driven play into a story telling hole is how we get linear adventures with "rail roading" GM tactics.

And so here it is.

If I say to a player, "Hey, I'm running AD&D tonight. Are you in?" and he replies with, "Well, what's the story?" I don't think he's implying that the game is not open-ended in nature. Nor that the game will be indifferent to the input of the group. Nor that anything is going to be hammered into anything (unless I tell him it's a story about hammering). Nor that it's going to be linear. Nor that he will be railroaded. I think he's just trying to get a rough idea of what we'll be doing to help him decide if he's interested in joining or not.

If I've run the game in such a way that all the players had a great time, there's a good chance a few of them might say, "Hey, great story, man!" And I don't think they're implying that the game was not open-ended in nature. Nor that their input didn't make a difference. Nor that I had to hammer everything to fit the story. Nor that it felt linear. Nor that they felt railroaded. In fact, if they had felt any of those things had been the case, they probably wouldn't be raving about it.

The point being, people use the word "story" all the time in the context of RPGs without any implication of it being pre-determined or linear. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of justification for pivoting to such a definition now to make the case that "story" somehow just doesn't mesh with RPGs. This is precisely what I was getting at in my first post and this thread. That a lot of the distinctions are baked into the definitions themselves, and those definitions aren't necessarily representative of how the terms are really used. And so the discussions wind up being little more than verbal diarrhea brought on by dicking around with definitions.

And then on top of that, that none of the self-ascribed "storygamers" I've spoken with would agree that what they're doing is railroady in nature. In fact, wasn't that Ron Edwards' whole beef to begin with? That he felt railroaded a lot? And I can understand why. Because railroaded epic campaigns were all the rave in the 90's. It was never my cup of tea, either, but you have to acknowledge that it was the traditional RPG that was most guilty of that particular sin. And maybe party of why that was so common was because those dolts also made the mistake of parsing "story" as a linear thing. So when they heard players rave about how awesome the story was in a campaign they enjoyed, the well-meaning DM accepted that as feedback and tried to give players what they wanted. Often with bad results. Well, if it was a mistake for an individual DM to assume a story must be linear, it's definitely a mistake to assume for purposes of this discussion that stories imply linearity.

I think back in the day the storygamers had a point, even if they later degenerated into toxicity. If a game is trying to evoke a specific feeling, then it helps to design rules that support that.

To use World of Darkness as an example, again, the humanity mechanic feels like it's punishing players for playing normally. To the point where across a half-dozen editions there are a ton of mechanics designed specifically to provide exceptions to that. "You get schizophrenia for stealing a candy bar!" "My path of enlightenment compels me to blowup a bus full of nuns!" The mechanic has clearly failed at what it was intended for.

So somebody designed a new game with a completely different take on the same concept: Whistlepunk Games' Feed. This game presents a vampirism/humanity mechanic that works like a lightside/darkside mechanic. Both options have benefits and drawbacks, and losing humanity never feels like a punishment for normal behavior. Since the mechanic gives you vampire superpowers for losing humanity, it may even feel like a reward.

What do you think?

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 03:32:40 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 11:38:42 AM
This is why I avoid using the word Story to describe RPGs. I prefer the term Scenario.
A story has a preset path and usually only one author. (Multiple authors are possible, but doesn't typically change the nature of storytelling)
We are not playing out a story of a character attempting to slay a dragon. We are participaing in a scenario where the resolution of the scenario is open ended enough so that slaying the dragon isn't necessarily it.

You can use whichever word you prefer. I would point out though that in the part of my post you quoted, I also used the word "scenario" and was using the two words interchangeably. Among the various dictionary definitions, "the plot of a dramatic work" is one that applicable to both words. So if you're drawing a distinction between the two words, you simply aren't talking about the same thing I'm talking about.

Yes, and I think the distinction between the two words is important, and in the context of RPGs, are not interchangeable. A story typically implies a set narrative, a scenario implies a setup with an open ended potential for resolution(s).

Quote

QuoteThe potential open ended nature of a scenario, and the input of a group of player characters, is what differentiates an RPG from a story, and trying to hammer such scenario driven play into a story telling hole is how we get linear adventures with "rail roading" GM tactics.

And so here it is.

If I say to a player, "Hey, I'm running AD&D tonight. Are you in?" and he replies with, "Well, what's the story?" I don't think he's implying that the game is not open-ended in nature. Nor that the game will be indifferent to the input of the group. Nor that anything is going to be hammered into anything (unless I tell him it's a story about hammering). Nor that it's going to be linear. Nor that he will be railroaded. I think he's just trying to get a rough idea of what we'll be doing to help him decide if he's interested in joining or not.

I've never had a player ask me "what's the story". If they did, I'd assume they meant "what's the scenario?" I'm not that anal retentive. I'm making the distinction in this thread because I'm discussing the difference and it's relevance to RPGs versus story games.

QuoteIf I've run the game in such a way that all the players had a great time, there's a good chance a few of them might say, "Hey, great story, man!" And I don't think they're implying that the game was not open-ended in nature. Nor that their input didn't make a difference. Nor that I had to hammer everything to fit the story. Nor that it felt linear. Nor that they felt railroaded. In fact, if they had felt any of those things had been the case, they probably wouldn't be raving about it.

The point being, people use the word "story" all the time in the context of RPGs without any implication of it being pre-determined or linear. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of justification for pivoting to such a definition now to make the case that "story" somehow just doesn't mesh with RPGs. This is precisely what I was getting at in my first post and this thread. That a lot of the distinctions are baked into the definitions themselves, and those definitions aren't necessarily representative of how the terms are really used. And so the discussions wind up being little more than verbal diarrhea brought on by dicking around with definitions.

And then on top of that, that none of the self-ascribed "storygamers" I've spoken with would agree that what they're doing is railroady in nature. In fact, wasn't that Ron Edwards' whole beef to begin with? That he felt railroaded a lot? And I can understand why. Because railroaded epic campaigns were all the rave in the 90's. It was never my cup of tea, either, but you have to acknowledge that it was the traditional RPG that was most guilty of that particular sin. And maybe party of why that was so common was because those dolts also made the mistake of parsing "story" as a linear thing. So when they heard players rave about how awesome the story was in a campaign they enjoyed, the well-meaning DM accepted that as feedback and tried to give players what they wanted. Often with bad results. Well, if it was a mistake for an individual DM to assume a story must be linear, it's definitely a mistake to assume for purposes of this discussion that stories imply linearity.

I do think that stories imply linearity. A typical film or book has a definite, linear structure, and by it's nature a set story. There are no players interacting with it. IMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.
The wrinkle is that there is a DM, who can take a railroad adventure off the rails if they so choose. I can take the most railroady scenario as a starting point, and open it up to be more like a scenario. It puts more work on the DM's shoulders to improvise, but many GMs have a lot of experience with that.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 01:35:01 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 12:10:45 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:33:12 AM
The question is: are you having fun?

If yes, who cares?

Complaining about wrongfun is for socjus pansies.

Good point, except most of us aren't doing that, we're arguing that RPGs aren't built to, good at or used to tell a story while sitting at the table at game day.

Short form: I disagree.

Long form: There's more than one way to tell a story. I suspect what a lot of people here object to is less the story aspect, and more the attempts to screw with the GM-player dynamic as well as the tendency for random chance to throw things for a loop. 'Oh noez, we can't have this rely on Joe making his Diplomacy check, that's not -narrative-' or somesuch.

Which I totally sympathize with, for what it's worth. The point of the game is that random chance enters the fray. Granted, you allow the players (as GM) to 'load the dice' a bit with their sheet bonuses as well as roleplaying well (remember, the big 'R' in RPG?). And it makes for great tales to tell later on.

If there's not a set plot, with set beats and a set ending, you're not telling a story. At the table.

You're having and adventure in a virtual world and you might or not tell a story afterwards about said adventure.

Point is you don't sit at the table to tell a story, the story comes after the fact if you decide to tell someone about your session/campaign.

Yes, randomness is important but the be all of RPGs.

Storygames are for sitting at a table to tell a story while you're on the table, that's why they have mechanics like narrative control, and other stuff to tell a story while at the table.

RPGs don't have those.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
How exactly is the RPG telling a story?

How isn't it?

A story is something that is told to a group, while an RPG is a collaborative experience.

They're radically different. That's why porting elements from fixed storytelling media to RPGs is fraught.

To the OP: "story games" usually refers to a cluster of games starting around 2000 that have mechanics that diverge a lot from traditional RPGs like D&D and GURPS. The precursors were the "New Style" games of Hogshead Games in the 1990s like Baron Munchausen, Puppetland, and Pantheon. This was followed by a group of games promoted by The Forge (www.indie-rpgs.com), including Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and Dogs in the Vineyard. The Forge faded in the mid-2000s, and the games that followed included Fiasco and Apocalypse World, and the numerous Apocalypse World derived games. I'd say that the Fate system is often also considered a story game, though it is borderline with traditional games -- and it didn't develop on The Forge or successor sites.

I joined this forum in 2006 - and it was much less political, but RPGPundit still ranted against these sort of games - as well as against some more traditional games like Blue Rose (originally published as the True20 system). At the time, he was using the True20 mechanics rather than anything old-school, but still had a historical bent to his games.

A lot of the sniping is One-True-Wayism, in my opinion. There have been story game advocates like Ron Edwards who looked down on traditional RPGs, but there have also always been people who pushed their game as superior, and others as inferior.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 04:12:09 PM
I do think that stories imply linearity. A typical film or book has a definite, linear structure, and by it's nature a set story. There are no players interacting with it. IMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.
The wrinkle is that there is a DM, who can take a railroad adventure off the rails if they so choose. I can take the most railroady scenario as a starting point, and open it up to be more like a scenario. It puts more work on the DM's shoulders to improvise, but many GMs have a lot of experience with that.

I agree about this. The funny thing to me is that "story games" are very much opposed to traditional railroaded modules. The games with the most railroaded modules are 1990s traditional RPGs, not story games. I think the key is here:

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 17, 2021, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM
Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

I don't want a DM to tell me a story. I've got books and films for that. I want to participate in an adventure.
And that, dear friends, is the difference between telling a story, and playing in an RPG.

But the published works generally called "story games" aren't about the DM telling a story. Heck, a lot of story games are GMless - like Fiasco or The Quiet Year. Even among those that have a GM, the GM often has less control over the game than in a traditional RPG -- by giving more narrational power to players in some circumstances.

I think some people can validly complain "I don't like controlling things outside of my PCs actions" as a problem with many story games. But "I don't want a DM to tell me a story" doesn't fit.

Greetings!

I also think there is some meaningful distinctions to be made--in that a traditional RPG is a *game*. Such implies various dynamics of player agency, choices, conflict, and competition, whether between themselves, against NPC groups, or just the DM's world in a general sense. All of that is also spontaneous, and worked out somewhat session-by-session, and moment-by-moment. The RPG isn't "Scripted". Storygames, such as they are, work against these salient dynamics inherent to RPG's. The byproduct of such differences is why a "story" only gradually emerges in an RPG, as a process of the players participating. Prior to the players proceeding with whatever scenario, there is no real "story" there.

Storygames really are a Walmart-version of trying to make a novel--while claiming it is a "game".

RPG's are first and foremost, a game. Any "story"--which is part of RPG's--comes after the game session.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Why's the point of comparison always novels

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:43:27 PM
Why's the point of comparison always novels

Literature was the primary influence on early D&D. AD&D is famous for it's Appendix N.

Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

You're the one that clicks to open the "You have ignored this poster" box. Caveat whateverthefucktor.

And RPGs are trying to tell a story. They scream it at you, begging to be heard, begging for you to know the truth, but you fuckin waste it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark I know the Marine corps beats out most of the braincells of the recruits in basic but at least the average site poster knows a circlejerk when they see one so that's a relief.

Game still tells a story. Moment-to-moment you're interpreting numbers into fictional things. Y'all making claims about "beginnings" and "ends" and narrative satisfaction, but that ain't needed.

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

And as a game it has a fail state (your PC dies) and a win state (your PC retires after carving his domain out of the world by guile and skill.)

Agreed, brother, furthermore, storygames can't be trying to be anything else than a novel, unless they are larping and using cameras, etc.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:11:11 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

And as a game it has a fail state (your PC dies) and a win state (your PC retires after carving his domain out of the world by guile and skill.)

Agreed, brother, furthermore, storygames can't be trying to be anything else than a novel, unless they are larping and using cameras, etc.

Failstate is the game stops, 'less you're not playing after the PC dies. Do you quit when the PC dies? Are you that kind of weirdo? Or do you keep playing with another character and the shit the PC did may have some small or large impact on the world?

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark I know the Marine corps beats out most of the braincells of the recruits in basic but at least the average site poster knows a circlejerk when they see one so that's a relief.

Game still tells a story. Moment-to-moment you're interpreting numbers into fictional things. Y'all making claims about "beginnings" and "ends" and narrative satisfaction, but that ain't needed.

"If I redefine "telling a story" then I'm corret and you're all wrong because the marine corps made you teh dumb!"

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:14:17 PM

Shark I know the Marine corps beats out most of the braincells of the recruits in basic but at least the average site poster knows a circlejerk when they see one so that's a relief.

Game still tells a story. Moment-to-moment you're interpreting numbers into fictional things. Y'all making claims about "beginnings" and "ends" and narrative satisfaction, but that ain't needed.

Quote
"If I redefine "telling a story" then I'm corret and you're all wrong because the marine corps made you teh dumb!"

"If I say things in a sarcastic tone then I can pretend I won the argument and don't spend my days living in fear of narcos!"

Your definition of story is shit, and so are you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:14:17 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark I know the Marine corps beats out most of the braincells of the recruits in basic but at least the average site poster knows a circlejerk when they see one so that's a relief.

Game still tells a story. Moment-to-moment you're interpreting numbers into fictional things. Y'all making claims about "beginnings" and "ends" and narrative satisfaction, but that ain't needed.

"If I redefine "telling a story" then I'm corret and you're all wrong because the marine corps made you teh dumb!"

"If I repeat the same joke I won't remember how my country has been destroyed by the country I fellate!"

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:17:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:14:17 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 06:07:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

This troll can't be this idiotic. Yeah, novels are a different medium than theatre, movies, comic books and television, and yet they all ARE trying to tell a story, just like storygames.

While RPGs aren't.

Now go back to being ignored by the adults in the room.

Greetings!

I've always had the impression that storygames were pretentious circlejerk fests for people trying to play a game, but failing, because they keep ckoking on this weird obsession with posing as a novelist, while despising D&D.

RPG's are a *game* Play the game. Obsessed with story? Read novels, or write novels yourself. Games an novels are two very distinct things. They are not the same things, and cannot be so, inherently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark I know the Marine corps beats out most of the braincells of the recruits in basic but at least the average site poster knows a circlejerk when they see one so that's a relief.

Game still tells a story. Moment-to-moment you're interpreting numbers into fictional things. Y'all making claims about "beginnings" and "ends" and narrative satisfaction, but that ain't needed.

"If I redefine "telling a story" then I'm corret and you're all wrong because the marine corps made you teh dumb!"

"If I repeat the same joke I won't remember how my country has been destroyed by the country I fellate!"

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:16:21 PM

"If I say things in a sarcastic tone then I can pretend I won the argument and don't spend my days living in fear of narcos!"

Your definition of story is shit, and so are you.

Point exactly where I repeat a "joke" you smoothbrain.

By your redefinition of story the people fighting in any war were telling a story, Doctors Without Borders are telling a story, people going to work are telling a story, people playing Monopoly are telling a story.

Now, use those many neurons teh Marine Corps didn't beat out of you and untangle that knot without re defining words.

You're an imbecile, which is why you can't argue your points wothout re defining words, and when confronted with it resort to ad hoiminem instead of addressing my points, while I can destroy your "arguments" and insult you at the same time. Because you're a smoothbrain.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:28:31 PM
Point exactly where I repeat a "joke" you smoothbrain.

You're talking to me twice, which is definitely a repetition of a joke.

QuoteBy your redefinition of story the people fighting in any war were telling a story, Doctors Without Borders are telling a story, people going to work are telling a story, people playing Monopoly are telling a story.

Now, use those many neurons teh Marine Corps didn't beat out of you and untangle that knot without re defining words.

Mine were raped out my ear by my parents but let's try anyway.

You got this "Oh these are telling a story and that's self-evidently wrong and stupid" thing going on in your list, but hey, I have no braincells, so spell it out for me real slow and obvious, with colors and drawings and shit. What's self-evidently wrong and stupid about that?

QuoteYou're an imbecile, which is why you can't argue your points wothout re defining words, and when confronted with it resort to ad hoiminem instead of addressing my points, while I can destroy your "arguments" and insult you at the same time. Because you're a smoothbrain.

I'm resorting to ad hominem because I don't give a shit about convincing you about shit. This ain't a debate. You're another waste of flesh here just like I'm another waste of flesh here. You're wrong, but if you stay wrong, who gives a fuck? You gonna see the light, whatever that is, and play different games?

Fuck no. This is shitting up an argument for its own sake, and you know it. You have the power to stop, and I will continue to not give a shit and annoy someone else whenever. Until then, we're both wasting our time and you know it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Oh this is guna be gud.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:33:17 PM

You're talking to me twice, which is definitely a repetition of a joke.

On that we agree, you are a joke.

QuoteBy your redefinition of story the people fighting in any war were telling a story, Doctors Without Borders are telling a story, people going to work are telling a story, people playing Monopoly are telling a story.

Now, use those many neurons teh Marine Corps didn't beat out of you and untangle that knot without re defining words.

QuoteMine were raped out my ear by my parents but let's try anyway.

Seing how stupid you are I can believe that.

QuoteYou got this "Oh these are telling a story and that's self-evidently wrong and stupid" thing going on in your list, but hey, I have no braincells, so spell it out for me real slow and obvious, with colors and drawings and shit. What's self-evidently wrong and stupid about that?

Lets see if I can dumb it down enough for a smoothbrain like you to understand:

By your re-definition of telling a story, which makes RPGs something that's telling a story, then the following is also true:

People fighting in a war are telling a story, truth is no they aren't they are risking their lives (like the PCs do in an RPG) to affect the world around them. They might tell a story afterwards IF they survive, but they weren't telling one, writting one or trying to while figthing a war.

Now change fighting a war with all the other examples if your somoothbrain allows you to and the same is true for those.

QuoteYou're an imbecile, which is why you can't argue your points wothout re defining words, and when confronted with it resort to ad hoiminem instead of addressing my points, while I can destroy your "arguments" and insult you at the same time. Because you're a smoothbrain.

QuoteI'm resorting to ad hominem because I don't give a shit about convincing you about shit. This ain't a debate. You're another waste of flesh here just like I'm another waste of flesh here. You're wrong, but if you stay wrong, who gives a fuck? You gonna see the light, whatever that is, and play different games?

Nope, you're resorting to ad hominem because you have no arguments, your only weapon is redefining words, and once exposed you're the emperor in his new suit.

QuoteFuck no. This is shitting up an argument for its own sake, and you know it. You have the power to stop, and I will continue to not give a shit and annoy someone else whenever. Until then, we're both wasting our time and you know it.

No, you're very eager to argue your post modernist BS because you think we haven't got a clue of what you're doing (your motte), and when called out you retire to your bailey of "I'm just a troll lolz!"

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Hey you got any sick burns that didn't get stolen from /pol/ or are you as much an election tourist as your join date suggests.

QuoteNo, you're very eager to argue your post modernist BS because you think we haven't got a clue of what you're doing (your motte), and when called out you retire to your bailey of "I'm just a troll lolz!"

Oh nice, I also read LessWrong sometimes, good for you! Got any other meta-comments you wanna make? Rhetorical superweapons or shit like that? If not great, but yes, I am indeed a troll, you called me a troll, so we agree, kick ass, let's move on.

QuoteLets see if I can dumb it down enough for a smoothbrain like you to understand:

By your re-definition of telling a story, which makes RPGs something that's telling a story, then the following is also true:

People fighting in a war are telling a story, truth is no they aren't they are risking their lives (like the PCs do in an RPG) to affect the world around them. They might tell a story afterwards IF they survive, but they weren't telling one, writting one or trying to while figthing a war.

Nope still not getting it, seems like you're making some kind of distinction between the doing of a thing like fighting a war and the telling of a thing that was done as a story and it's gotta be done after the fact, but I'm still just too dumb to figure out what you think a story is based on that. Gonna have to keep dumbing it down a shave, be real clear.

QuoteNow change fighting a war with all the other examples if your somoothbrain allows you to and the same is true for those.

It doesn't sorry bruh you're gonna have to spell it out, like any good leftist Imma make you do the heavy lifting, and you're either gonna do it or give up and go back to ignoring me because it ain't worth the effort.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:51:15 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Yeah man Fiasco and Dread and shit are real non-lethal.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:56:07 PM
Hey you got any sick burns that didn't get stolen from /pol/ or are you as much an election tourist as your join date suggests.

QuoteNo, you're very eager to argue your post modernist BS because you think we haven't got a clue of what you're doing (your motte), and when called out you retire to your bailey of "I'm just a troll lolz!"

Oh nice, I also read LessWrong sometimes, good for you! Got any other meta-comments you wanna make? Rhetorical superweapons or shit like that? If not great, but yes, I am indeed a troll, you called me a troll, so we agree, kick ass, let's move on.

QuoteLets see if I can dumb it down enough for a smoothbrain like you to understand:

By your re-definition of telling a story, which makes RPGs something that's telling a story, then the following is also true:

People fighting in a war are telling a story, truth is no they aren't they are risking their lives (like the PCs do in an RPG) to affect the world around them. They might tell a story afterwards IF they survive, but they weren't telling one, writting one or trying to while figthing a war.

Nope still not getting it, seems like you're making some kind of distinction between the doing of a thing like fighting a war and the telling of a thing that was done as a story and it's gotta be done after the fact, but I'm still just too dumb to figure out what you think a story is based on that. Gonna have to keep dumbing it down a shave, be real clear.

QuoteNow change fighting a war with all the other examples if your somoothbrain allows you to and the same is true for those.

It doesn't sorry bruh you're gonna have to spell it out, like any good leftist Imma make you do the heavy lifting, and you're either gonna do it or give up and go back to ignoring me because it ain't worth the effort.

Keep up the ad hominems smoothbrain, it really hides the fact you have no arguments.

Also keep playing you don't get it, it makes no difference to me, my point is out there and anyone not a dishonest post modernist imbecile can see it.

Buh bye.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 07:00:10 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:56:07 PM
Hey you got any sick burns that didn't get stolen from /pol/ or are you as much an election tourist as your join date suggests.

QuoteNo, you're very eager to argue your post modernist BS because you think we haven't got a clue of what you're doing (your motte), and when called out you retire to your bailey of "I'm just a troll lolz!"

Oh nice, I also read LessWrong sometimes, good for you! Got any other meta-comments you wanna make? Rhetorical superweapons or shit like that? If not great, but yes, I am indeed a troll, you called me a troll, so we agree, kick ass, let's move on.

QuoteLets see if I can dumb it down enough for a smoothbrain like you to understand:

By your re-definition of telling a story, which makes RPGs something that's telling a story, then the following is also true:

People fighting in a war are telling a story, truth is no they aren't they are risking their lives (like the PCs do in an RPG) to affect the world around them. They might tell a story afterwards IF they survive, but they weren't telling one, writting one or trying to while figthing a war.

Nope still not getting it, seems like you're making some kind of distinction between the doing of a thing like fighting a war and the telling of a thing that was done as a story and it's gotta be done after the fact, but I'm still just too dumb to figure out what you think a story is based on that. Gonna have to keep dumbing it down a shave, be real clear.

QuoteNow change fighting a war with all the other examples if your somoothbrain allows you to and the same is true for those.

It doesn't sorry bruh you're gonna have to spell it out, like any good leftist Imma make you do the heavy lifting, and you're either gonna do it or give up and go back to ignoring me because it ain't worth the effort.

Keep up the ad hominems smoothbrain, it really hides the fact you have no arguments.

Also keep playing you don't get it, it makes no difference to me, my point is out there and anyone not a dishonest post modernist imbecile can see it.

Buh bye.

Fortunately there's only like 9K members on this site and 99K on the postmodern socialist hellhole so the tradfucks will get btfo by numbers sooner or later.

Anyway:

I rolled a 17 on a d20,
Then I rolled an 8 on a 2d6.

What happened

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:51:15 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Greetings!

All the Mary Sue bitches can be fed to the alligators! CHOMP! CHOMP!

Fucking pretentious, snowflake storygamers! Storygames are all worthless shit. Most of them, anyways. It doesn't surprise me at all that most storygamers are also snowflakes, of one rainbow flavor or another. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah man, kill em, kill em all, show 'em what their pretensions look like on the barrel of a gun.

Pile the bodies high and burn 'em with their itch.io pdfs printed out for kindling.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:51:15 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM
I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Yeah man Fiasco and Dread and shit are real non-lethal.

Yeah, as This Guy says, there are plenty of high-lethality story games -- Fiasco and Dread are popular examples, and Apocalypse World is also relatively lethal as well.

In general, I see little resemblance between SHARK or GeekyBugle's picture of story games, and how actual games like Fiasco, Dread, and so forth are really played.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 07:41:05 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:51:15 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM
I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Yeah man Fiasco and Dread and shit are real non-lethal.

Yeah, as This Guy says, there are plenty of high-lethality story games -- Fiasco and Dread are popular examples, and Apocalypse World is also relatively lethal as well.

In general, I see little resemblance between SHARK or GeekyBugle's picture of story games, and how actual games like Fiasco, Dread, and so forth are really played.

Argument from incredulity

Also anecdotal evidence.

You're not good at the logic are you?

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 07:41:05 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:51:15 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM
I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Yeah man Fiasco and Dread and shit are real non-lethal.

Yeah, as This Guy says, there are plenty of high-lethality story games -- Fiasco and Dread are popular examples, and Apocalypse World is also relatively lethal as well.

In general, I see little resemblance between SHARK or GeekyBugle's picture of story games, and how actual games like Fiasco, Dread, and so forth are really played.

Now in probably undeserved fairness to 'em there's lots of nonlethal storygames but it sure ain't a monolith.

Edit: kim you might wanna not waste your time until Geeky's had his nappies, his blood is up and he's just describing rhetorical terms now.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 07:41:05 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:56:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 06:51:15 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM
I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

True, storygamers all create selfinsert PCs that have to be the most special snowflake of all and can never lose, be wrong and much less die.

Yeah man Fiasco and Dread and shit are real non-lethal.

Yeah, as This Guy says, there are plenty of high-lethality story games -- Fiasco and Dread are popular examples, and Apocalypse World is also relatively lethal as well.

In general, I see little resemblance between SHARK or GeekyBugle's picture of story games, and how actual games like Fiasco, Dread, and so forth are really played.

Greetings!

Hi there, Jhkim! Well, just going on the merits of a game--mechanics, style, presentation, etc, there definitely seems to be a huge contrast. Lots of games here have fans--D&D, Talislanta, COC, Pendragon, WHFRP, Harn, even Rolemaster!--of course, each also having some members that don't like them, for various reasons. All of which are often discussed and debated with extensive commentary, quotes, and examples, both for and against.

That's all good and well. I find such discussions usually interesting, often educational, as well as humorous, regardless of an individual member's stance on a particular game.

Ahh. But STORYGAMES! Members here in the vast majority--revile such storygames, with unrelenting fury and disdain. Not only is such opposition both wide and deep--but the nature of that opposition is consistent. Point after point, storygames' deficiencies are described, and roundly mocked.

I haven't played many storygames--though what I have personally read and seen of them--apart from here--has certainly not impressed me. Then, in reviewing commentary here, even the many storygames I haven't played or seen--members here describe them all as possessing the same flaws and terrible design found in other storygames--including the few that I have seen and read.

There is very clearly a common set of mechanics, design choices, and presentation dynamics that most members here hate--but also seem to be distinctly different from many other games, such as the games I mentioned above.

Why do you think that opposition and hatred is so consistent? In storygame after storygame, the same terrible flaws are always mentioned.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

Is this post some of that performance art?

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 08:34:52 PM
Ahh. But STORYGAMES! Members here in the vast majority--revile such storygames, with unrelenting fury and disdain. Not only is such opposition both wide and deep--but the nature of that opposition is consistent. Point after point, storygames' deficiencies are described, and roundly mocked.

I haven't played many storygames--though what I have personally read and seen of them--apart from here--has certainly not impressed me. Then, in reviewing commentary here, even the many storygames I haven't played or seen--members here describe them all as possessing the same flaws and terrible design found in other storygames--including the few that I have seen and read.

What are the few that you've seen and read? I've played extended campaigns of Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, In a Wicked Age, Lacuna, Dungeon World, Monster of the Week, and Fate, along with dozens of one-shots of many games, including Fiasco, Microscope, and Bluebeard's Bride as some of my more common choices. I feel most of these are quite different from each other.

Maybe you've played a bunch that aren't really suited to your tastes.

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 08:34:52 PM
There is very clearly a common set of mechanics, design choices, and presentation dynamics that most members here hate--but also seem to be distinctly different from many other games, such as the games I mentioned above.

Why do you think that opposition and hatred is so consistent? In storygame after storygame, the same terrible flaws are always mentioned.

I don't like to speculate on other people's motives. I can talk to my own experience, but other people can speak about what they think and why.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:47:28 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 19, 2021, 06:45:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 18, 2021, 10:55:54 PM
Storygamer = Someone sitts to write a story about a fisherman.

I always thought there was a strong correlation between Storygamers and Mary Sues.

Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Over the Edge is the ur-storygame.

Quote from: SHARK on April 19, 2021, 08:34:52 PM
Ahh. But STORYGAMES! Members here in the vast majority--revile such storygames, with unrelenting fury and disdain. Not only is such opposition both wide and deep--but the nature of that opposition is consistent. Point after point, storygames' deficiencies are described, and roundly mocked.

Not me. I'm mostly amused by the fascination with bacon.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:47:28 PM
Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Over the Edge is the ur-storygame.

I'd classify Over the Edge with Cinematic Unisystem, Amber Diceless, and Everway -- they're strains of 1990s rules-light games that highly simplify mechanics, but the mechanics don't do much directly. They have traditional GM and player roles.

Forge and post-Forge stuff like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Fiasco, and so forth are very different. They're a lot more crunchy and try to put more flavor directly into the mechanics. The rules-light games try to brush past the mechanics to focus on GM-handled drama, whereas in the story games, players engage a lot more with the mechanics. There's more dice-rolling, marking checkboxes, etc.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 09:26:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:47:28 PM
Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Over the Edge is the ur-storygame.

I'd classify Over the Edge with Cinematic Unisystem, Amber Diceless, and Everway -- they're strains of 1990s rules-light games that highly simplify mechanics, but the mechanics don't do much directly. They have traditional GM and player roles.

Forge and post-Forge stuff like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Fiasco, and so forth are very different. They're a lot more crunchy and try to put more flavor directly into the mechanics. The rules-light games try to brush past the mechanics to focus on GM-handled drama, whereas in the story games, players engage a lot more with the mechanics. There's more dice-rolling, marking checkboxes, etc.

I've translated a whole PbtA game, it's shit, narrative control this, narrative control that. It's focus is not to have your PC live in a World, but to tell a story, the players can say things that block what the GM said and become "Narrative  Truth".

It's focus is clearly on the Narrative tm.

If that's an example of the good ones I tremble to think of the shitty ones.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 05:10:02 PM
To the OP: "story games" usually refers to a cluster of games starting around 2000 that have mechanics that diverge a lot from traditional RPGs like D&D and GURPS. The precursors were the "New Style" games of Hogshead Games in the 1990s like Baron Munchausen, Puppetland, and Pantheon. This was followed by a group of games promoted by The Forge (www.indie-rpgs.com), including Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and Dogs in the Vineyard. The Forge faded in the mid-2000s, and the games that followed included Fiasco and Apocalypse World, and the numerous Apocalypse World derived games. I'd say that the Fate system is often also considered a story game, though it is borderline with traditional games -- and it didn't develop on The Forge or successor sites.

I joined this forum in 2006 - and it was much less political, but RPGPundit still ranted against these sort of games - as well as against some more traditional games like Blue Rose (originally published as the True20 system). At the time, he was using the True20 mechanics rather than anything old-school, but still had a historical bent to his games.

A lot of the sniping is One-True-Wayism, in my opinion. There have been story game advocates like Ron Edwards who looked down on traditional RPGs, but there have also always been people who pushed their game as superior, and others as inferior.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 04:12:09 PM
I do think that stories imply linearity. A typical film or book has a definite, linear structure, and by it's nature a set story. There are no players interacting with it. IMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.
The wrinkle is that there is a DM, who can take a railroad adventure off the rails if they so choose. I can take the most railroady scenario as a starting point, and open it up to be more like a scenario. It puts more work on the DM's shoulders to improvise, but many GMs have a lot of experience with that.

I agree about this. The funny thing to me is that "story games" are very much opposed to traditional railroaded modules. The games with the most railroaded modules are 1990s traditional RPGs, not story games. I think the key is here:

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 17, 2021, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on April 17, 2021, 04:45:42 PM
Storygames have been around for decades. See DMs running campaigns. It's the same thing. Players want their DM to tell them stories about what their characters do.

I don't want a DM to tell me a story. I've got books and films for that. I want to participate in an adventure.
And that, dear friends, is the difference between telling a story, and playing in an RPG.

But the published works generally called "story games" aren't about the DM telling a story. Heck, a lot of story games are GMless - like Fiasco or The Quiet Year. Even among those that have a GM, the GM often has less control over the game than in a traditional RPG -- by giving more narrational power to players in some circumstances.

I think some people can validly complain "I don't like controlling things outside of my PCs actions" as a problem with many story games. But "I don't want a DM to tell me a story" doesn't fit.

Try this on for size. I think the difference between RPGs and story games, is that story games try to simulate a storytelling experience (watching a film, reading a book) to some degree or other. The more they try to simulate storytelling, the more story game they are.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:29:29 PM
I've translated a whole PbtA game, it's shit, narrative control this, narrative control that. It's focus is not to have your PC live in a World, but to tell a story, the players can say things that block what the GM said and become "Narrative  Truth".

It's focus is clearly on the Narrative tm.

If that's an example of the good ones I tremble to think of the shitty ones.

Which PbtA game, out of curiosity?

I'm not saying you're going to like them. Some people just don't like story games, some people just don't like traditional RPGs, some people like both, some people like neither.

But as far as criticism, this complaint:

players can say things that block what the GM said and become "Narrative Truth"

is completely different from this complaint (from Ratman_tf earlier):

I don't want a DM to tell me a story.

They're in contradiction to each other, really.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 08:55:30 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 05:52:26 PM
Yeah that's great but a heckof lot of storygames aren't trying to be Appendix N they're all into movies or comic books or some performance art shit. Guess if you think everybody's trying to tell stories Appendix N style because you are trapped in the OSR labyrinth you might miss that. Like I got my Fiasco copy here and it's fellating the Coen Brothers not Fritz Leiber.

But sure those are different media from RPGs and they tell stories different ways but it's like "That movie can't be telling a story, it's not a novel" is dumb, same way "That group of people playing a game where they tell a story can't be telling a story, it's a game not a novel" is also dumb.

Is this post some of that performance art?

Pretty hackneyed if it is, maybe banksy wrote it

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:29:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 09:26:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:47:28 PM
Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Over the Edge is the ur-storygame.

I'd classify Over the Edge with Cinematic Unisystem, Amber Diceless, and Everway -- they're strains of 1990s rules-light games that highly simplify mechanics, but the mechanics don't do much directly. They have traditional GM and player roles.

Forge and post-Forge stuff like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Fiasco, and so forth are very different. They're a lot more crunchy and try to put more flavor directly into the mechanics. The rules-light games try to brush past the mechanics to focus on GM-handled drama, whereas in the story games, players engage a lot more with the mechanics. There's more dice-rolling, marking checkboxes, etc.

I've translated a whole PbtA game, it's shit, narrative control this, narrative control that. It's focus is not to have your PC live in a World, but to tell a story, the players can say things that block what the GM said and become "Narrative  Truth".

It's focus is clearly on the Narrative tm.

If that's an example of the good ones I tremble to think of the shitty ones.

Aw shit the thing he didn't like did the thing he didn't like.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 09:36:31 PM
Try this on for size. I think the difference between RPGs and story games, is that story games try to simulate a storytelling experience (watching a film, reading a book) to some degree or other. The more they try to simulate storytelling, the more story game they are.

I think that's roughly fine as a definition, but once one gets into the details it gets very fuzzy. Is Amber Diceless more of a story game for taking out the die rolls and many other mechanics, for example? Is Microscope *less* of a story game because the timeline is created out of order, which doesn't resemble any traditional media storytelling?

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 09:39:12 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:29:29 PM
I've translated a whole PbtA game, it's shit, narrative control this, narrative control that. It's focus is not to have your PC live in a World, but to tell a story, the players can say things that block what the GM said and become "Narrative  Truth".

It's focus is clearly on the Narrative tm.

If that's an example of the good ones I tremble to think of the shitty ones.

Which PbtA game, out of curiosity?

I'm not saying you're going to like them. Some people just don't like story games, some people just don't like traditional RPGs, some people like both, some people like neither.

But as far as criticism, this complaint:

players can say things that block what the GM said and become "Narrative Truth"

is completely different from this complaint (from Ratman_tf earlier):

I don't want a DM to tell me a story.

They're in contradiction to each other, really.

Cowboy World, by a recently deceased friend of mine.

WOW, you found one quote of mine that is totally different and in contradiction with a quote by a different person, whoop dee doo.

Edited to add: Ratman_tf was responding to a comment about the DM telling you a story, I'm talking about a specific game with one specific mechanic.

Why in your brain those two can be mixed up and become self defeating is beyond me.

So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

But it was Shark who had his brain cells beaten out right?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 09:36:31 PM
Try this on for size. I think the difference between RPGs and story games, is that story games try to simulate a storytelling experience (watching a film, reading a book) to some degree or other. The more they try to simulate storytelling, the more story game they are.

QuoteI think that's roughly fine as a definition, but once one gets into the details it gets very fuzzy. Is Amber Diceless more of a story game for taking out the die rolls and many other mechanics, for example? Is Microscope *less* of a story game because the timeline is created out of order, which doesn't resemble any traditional media storytelling?

Microscope is like on-the-fly anachronic order simulation, the on-the-fly bit is def new but the anachronic order is old hat. Feels like a collab tech to do backstory for a show or smth

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 09:26:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:47:28 PM
Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Over the Edge is the ur-storygame.

I'd classify Over the Edge with Cinematic Unisystem, Amber Diceless, and Everway -- they're strains of 1990s rules-light games that highly simplify mechanics, but the mechanics don't do much directly. They have traditional GM and player roles.

Forge and post-Forge stuff like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Fiasco, and so forth are very different. They're a lot more crunchy and try to put more flavor directly into the mechanics. The rules-light games try to brush past the mechanics to focus on GM-handled drama, whereas in the story games, players engage a lot more with the mechanics. There's more dice-rolling, marking checkboxes, etc.

I called out Over the Edge because it seems to be specifically cited as an influence by more indie designers than anything else. It's basically the Velvet Underground of the indie RPG world. You also missed a couple, like the deconstructionist Fudge or Theatrix, which really worked through a lot of the dramatist/proto-narrativist diceless stuff (the example of play that was up on your site forever is a good illustration). Or Ghostbusters and James Bond 007, for earlier non-indie progenitors.

I wouldn't give the Forge all the credit, but the shift wasn't really toward crunch, but toward very focused crunch. Everything supporting the particular mode of play desired, and nothing else. Many of the 90s indie games were wildly experimental, but still used a lot of the elements of more traditional games, and the innovative elements were often patchwork or piecemeal additions rather than the entire game.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:58:53 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

But it was Shark who had his brain cells beaten out right?

Mine were raped out by my family try to keep up. It is the marines though so a little bit of that is also possible for shark.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:00:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 09:26:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 06:47:28 PM
Ehhhhhhh yeah why not. I mostly seen em in D&D where somebody makes the ten-page backstory though or Over The Edge. Dunno why the last one

Over the Edge is the ur-storygame.

I'd classify Over the Edge with Cinematic Unisystem, Amber Diceless, and Everway -- they're strains of 1990s rules-light games that highly simplify mechanics, but the mechanics don't do much directly. They have traditional GM and player roles.

Forge and post-Forge stuff like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Fiasco, and so forth are very different. They're a lot more crunchy and try to put more flavor directly into the mechanics. The rules-light games try to brush past the mechanics to focus on GM-handled drama, whereas in the story games, players engage a lot more with the mechanics. There's more dice-rolling, marking checkboxes, etc.

I called out Over the Edge because it seems to be specifically cited as an influence by more indie designers than anything else. It's basically the Velvet Underground of the indie RPG world. You also missed a couple, like the deconstructionist Fudge or Theatrix, which really worked through a lot of the dramatist/proto-narrativist diceless stuff (the example of play that was up on your site forever is a good illustration). Or Ghostbusters and James Bond 007, for earlier non-indie progenitors.

I wouldn't give the Forge all the credit, but the shift wasn't really toward crunch, but toward very focused crunch. Everything supporting the particular mode of play desired, and nothing else. Many of the 90s indie games were wildly experimental, but still used a lot of the elements of more traditional games, and the innovative elements were often patchwork or piecemeal additions rather than the entire game.

Hey that's a good point there, difference between rules-light and rules-light theme-tight.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:05:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

What's he wearing.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:06:45 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:05:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

What's he wearing.

An expression of pain, the remains of a sled, and his old prom suit.

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:06:45 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:05:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

What's he wearing.

An expression of pain, the remains of a sled, and his old prom suit.

Hot.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:10:01 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:06:45 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 10:05:24 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:04:39 PM

Quote from: This Guy on April 19, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
So you do want the DM to tell you a story

Yes, tell me how wonderful your Mary Sue NPC is. Please.

He's like Willy Loman without the good luck

What's he wearing.

An expression of pain, the remains of a sled, and his old prom suit.

Hot.

I am here to please mostly myself but sometimes others.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 04:12:09 PM
Yes, and I think the distinction between the two words is important, and in the context of RPGs, are not interchangeable.

Surely you must see the problem, that if you're going to begin at step 1 by drawing a distinction, you cannot then argue that there IS a distinction. That would be assuming the conclusion. Allow me to suggest, that to avoid circular logic, you don't get to choose your definition, even if it is one of the perfectly legitimate dictionary definitions. You have to look at how the word is being used. And in particular how it is being used by those you are responding to. If you're trying to make a point about storygames, you have to confine yourself to the storygamer use of "story" which is generally contra railroading. I'm not choosing which definition I use for story. I'm deferring to those players who say they enjoy RPGs more when there's a good story, and I'm going by what they mean by the word.

QuoteA story typically implies a set narrative, a scenario implies a setup with an open ended potential for resolution(s).

Careful with the word "typically." The most common cause of death in the US is heart disease. If someone dies, they most typically die of heart disease. However, that is not the typical cause of death for someone under 40. There it's most typically some sort of accident. What is "typical" is not a transitory property from group to sub-group. Even if we agree that stories in general are typically linear, that doesn't mean stories in an RPG context are typically linear. Given that RPGs have unknowns like the result of dice rolls and player choice, I think you need to meet an extraordinary burden of proof to sustain your claim here.

QuoteIMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.

That's one theory. I could point to a really interesting professor of culture who has observed that academia has historically been 50 to 100 years behind the culture, and he believes we're in a new cultural age of stories where the trend is that stories are no longer linear. He cites Tolkien, Dungeons & Dragons, video games like Grand Theft Auto, and The Simpsons, and he observes the emphasis placed on world-building such that, yes, any given episode of Simpsons is a series of events that occur in a specific chronology, but the characters and setting has become so rich over the course of the series that it gets really easy to imagine your own stories, or how the episode would have played out if things had gone differently at a particular juncture. And so we get fan fiction. And of course there were choose-your-own-adventure books. I've even heard film critics recently specifically criticize movies (in particular the new Star Wars movies) for their failure to "world build"--their telling of the story fails to give the impression that there's this big rich world around the action. And so maybe in the past 5-10 years were in a regressive phase counter to the bigger trend. If you put stock into this line of thought, it is perhaps possible that DMs during that particular area were inspired by stories and films that were particularly good at world building, they thought it would translate well to RPGs, and they just weren't skilled at executing.

Personally, I believe it comes down to a bandwidth problem. And this produces a lot of problems in an RPG. And different gamers are bothered by different problems and so seek to solve different problems. Sometimes two people find different solutions to the same problems.

I pretty much only run sandboxes. But if players get to go anywhere and do anything they want to do, the group might split in 4 different directions. I can't describe four different scenes simultaneously. So I need some solution to this bandwidth problem.

One possible solution is that each player only gets 25% of game time to actually play and spend the other 75% of their time twiddling their thumbs. But that might seem really unfun. So another possible solution is to say, no, you can't go ANYWHERE you want. You have to stick together. Which mostly works, though it sucks if some players feel others are being reckless. Or stealth characters may not really have much opportunity to do their shtick when the rest of the party are clanky armor guys. So I've got another solution. Just did this yesterday. Every player plays using solo rules. No GM. We got to cooperate, split up, be stealthy, running around this sweet sandbox, and that was fun.

And that's the thing. As we find different ways to solve different problems, we defy arbitrary definitions. One problem I've encountered many times in the past running sandboxes is, not every player is sufficiently pro-active to handle a sandbox. They need a story. So I also needed to find ways to provide players the feeling that they are helping create a story as they go while still staying true to the sandbox style play that I enjoy.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:35:26 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 04:12:09 PM
Yes, and I think the distinction between the two words is important, and in the context of RPGs, are not interchangeable.

Surely you must see the problem, that if you're going to begin at step 1 by drawing a distinction, you cannot then argue that there IS a distinction. That would be assuming the conclusion. Allow me to suggest, that to avoid circular logic, you don't get to choose your definition, even if it is one of the perfectly legitimate dictionary definitions. You have to look at how the word is being used. And in particular how it is being used by those you are responding to. If you're trying to make a point about storygames, you have to confine yourself to the storygamer use of "story" which is generally contra railroading. I'm not choosing which definition I use for story. I'm deferring to those players who say they enjoy RPGs more when there's a good story, and I'm going by what they mean by the word.

Well, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.
I don't think a storygame is defined by being a railroad. I do think it's defined by a game that attempts to simulate telling a story. And now I'm starting to repeat myself.

Quote

QuoteA story typically implies a set narrative, a scenario implies a setup with an open ended potential for resolution(s).

Careful with the word "typically." The most common cause of death in the US is heart disease. If someone dies, they most typically die of heart disease. However, that is not the typical cause of death for someone under 40. There it's most typically some sort of accident. What is "typical" is not a transitory property from group to sub-group. Even if we agree that stories in general are typically linear, that doesn't mean stories in an RPG context are typically linear. Given that RPGs have unknowns like the result of dice rolls and player choice, I think you need to meet an extraordinary burden of proof to sustain your claim here.

There are... almost always exceptions. And I already parse the fuck out of my posts trying to head off the nitpicker who drags some rare exception into the discussion. And it usually happens anyway, but at least I tried. If you want to nitpick my use of qualifiers, then we're going to spend far more time discussing terms than discussing the topic.

Quote

QuoteIMO linear, railroady adventures came about due to trying to shoehorn an RPG scenario into a story shaped hole, and suffered for it. They were popular, but I think that's where the phenomenon of people buying RPG as literature and not as gaming material came about. And it makes sense. As adventures got more focused on telling a story.

That's one theory. I could point to a really interesting professor of culture who has observed that academia has historically been 50 to 100 years behind the culture, and he believes we're in a new cultural age of stories where the trend is that stories are no longer linear. He cites Tolkien, Dungeons & Dragons, video games like Grand Theft Auto, and The Simpsons, and he observes the emphasis placed on world-building such that, yes, any given episode of Simpsons is a series of events that occur in a specific chronology, but the characters and setting has become so rich over the course of the series that it gets really easy to imagine your own stories, or how the episode would have played out if things had gone differently at a particular juncture. And so we get fan fiction. And of course there were choose-your-own-adventure books. I've even heard film critics recently specifically criticize movies (in particular the new Star Wars movies) for their failure to "world build"--their telling of the story fails to give the impression that there's this big rich world around the action. And so maybe in the past 5-10 years were in a regressive phase counter to the bigger trend. If you put stock into this line of thought, it is perhaps possible that DMs during that particular area were inspired by stories and films that were particularly good at world building, they thought it would translate well to RPGs, and they just weren't skilled at executing.

Personally, I believe it comes down to a bandwidth problem. And this produces a lot of problems in an RPG. And different gamers are bothered by different problems and so seek to solve different problems. Sometimes two people find different solutions to the same problems.

I pretty much only run sandboxes. But if players get to go anywhere and do anything they want to do, the group might split in 4 different directions. I can't describe four different scenes simultaneously. So I need some solution to this bandwidth problem.

One possible solution is that each player only gets 25% of game time to actually play and spend the other 75% of their time twiddling their thumbs. But that might seem really unfun. So another possible solution is to say, no, you can't go ANYWHERE you want. You have to stick together. Which mostly works, though it sucks if some players feel others are being reckless. Or stealth characters may not really have much opportunity to do their shtick when the rest of the party are clanky armor guys. So I've got another solution. Just did this yesterday. Every player plays using solo rules. No GM. We got to cooperate, split up, be stealthy, running around this sweet sandbox, and that was fun.

And that's the thing. As we find different ways to solve different problems, we defy arbitrary definitions. One problem I've encountered many times in the past running sandboxes is, not every player is sufficiently pro-active to handle a sandbox. They need a story. So I also needed to find ways to provide players the feeling that they are helping create a story as they go while still staying true to the sandbox style play that I enjoy.

Again, we're getting into a rut over railroads. I don't think storygames are inherently a railroad. I do think that railroads are trying to simulate story by making non-story-like-results not happen.
Mostly that railroads were the first, clumsy attempt to force a story out of an RPG session. Modern Story Games do this without the railroading. We had a whole "movement" based on this, that's part of the topic.

And if anyone nitpicks any of my statements because I didn't put a qualifier in there, suck my left nut.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:55:45 PM
Cowboy World, by a recently deceased friend of mine.

WOW, you found one quote of mine that is totally different and in contradiction with a quote by a different person, whoop dee doo.

Edited to add: Ratman_tf was responding to a comment about the DM telling you a story, I'm talking about a specific game with one specific mechanic.

Why in your brain those two can be mixed up and become self defeating is beyond me.

Sorry to hear about your friend passing, GeekyBugle. I looked over Cowboy World - it's a little unusual for PbtA, since it doesn't have archetypes, and it's sparsely written -- but a lot of the other material is similar. If you don't like the narrative focus of it, you probably won't like other PbtA games like Dungeon World or Monster of the Week.

As for the relation -- in Reply #15 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/history-lesson-please-storygames/msg1168838/#msg1168838), you said that you agreed 1000% with Ratman_tf's comment that I quoted, which was a generalization about all story games, and your criticism of Cowboy World seemed to contradict that.

The point is, someone could (a) hate the idea of "GM tells you a story", and also (b) enjoy Cowboy World because it's about players creating adventure for themselves. I know a lot of gamers who hate (a) but enjoy different PbtA games.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 10:35:26 PM

Surely you must see the problem, that if you're going to begin at step 1 by drawing a distinction, you cannot then argue that there IS a distinction. That would be assuming the conclusion. Allow me to suggest, that to avoid circular logic, you don't get to choose your definition, even if it is one of the perfectly legitimate dictionary definitions. You have to look at how the word is being used. And in particular how it is being used by those you are responding to. If you're trying to make a point about storygames, you have to confine yourself to the storygamer use of "story" which is generally contra railroading. I'm not choosing which definition I use for story. I'm deferring to those players who say they enjoy RPGs more when there's a good story, and I'm going by what they mean by the word.

So If I redefine the word "story" then I'm always right?

Words have meaning, definitions, if you don't mean story then use a word that conveys what you mean without redefining the other word.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2021, 11:40:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2021, 09:55:45 PM
Cowboy World, by a recently deceased friend of mine.

WOW, you found one quote of mine that is totally different and in contradiction with a quote by a different person, whoop dee doo.

Edited to add: Ratman_tf was responding to a comment about the DM telling you a story, I'm talking about a specific game with one specific mechanic.

Why in your brain those two can be mixed up and become self defeating is beyond me.

Sorry to hear about your friend passing, GeekyBugle. I looked over Cowboy World - it's a little unusual for PbtA, since it doesn't have archetypes, and it's sparsely written -- but a lot of the other material is similar. If you don't like the narrative focus of it, you probably won't like other PbtA games like Dungeon World or Monster of the Week.

As for the relation -- in Reply #15 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/history-lesson-please-storygames/msg1168838/#msg1168838), you said that you agreed 1000% with Ratman_tf's comment that I quoted, which was a generalization about all story games, and your criticism of Cowboy World seemed to contradict that.

The point is, someone could (a) hate the idea of "GM tells you a story", and also (b) enjoy Cowboy World because it's about players creating adventure for themselves. I know a lot of gamers who hate (a) but enjoy different PbtA games.

Thanks, it was a shock for sure.

As for the quote:

Again, I'm talking about a specific mechanic of a specific game, there's no contradiction with me agreing with a different statement, I can not like both things.

I might group uses of "story" in RPGs into a couple of broad categories:

(1) traditional games with linear / railroaded modules, like Dragonlance for D&D and many late 1980s or 1990s modules.

(2) mostly-traditional games like White Wolf's Storyteller system and Torg with minor mechanics related to story - and GM advice to match

(3) non-traditional rules-light games like Over the Edge or Amber Diceless which ditch a lot more of traditional RPG mechanics, and have narrative GM advice - but don't have especially story-oriented mechanics

(4) hybrid games like Burning Wheel or Fate that still have traditional mechanics like skills and attributes - but also have narrative mechanics that significantly restructure some parts, and have a more traditional GM and player structure

(5) GMed story games like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Mouse Guard where mechanics have little resemblance to traditional RPG mechanics, but

(6) GMless story games like Fiasco, Microscope, and others where play is thoroughly restructured

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 10:51:32 PMWell, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.

I don't know who's saying that. Not me. I haven't said anything about constructing stories. And I haven't said anything about calling everything a storygame. I've said stories fit quite naturally into roleplaying games. I have indicated that virtually everything someone does IS a story. It happens automatically. There's no construction step necessary. "Ted wants cheese, so he goes to the store, finds the cheese he wants, and buys it," is a story. Maybe not a very good one. But it's a story.

Ted is a player character. He has the turophilia personality quirk. Maybe he doesn't know where in the store the cheese is, so he has to go on a dungeon crawl through the supermarket. Maybe he makes it through or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gives up. Maybe he finds the cheese but realizes it costs more money than he has. Maybe there's a random encounter with a hairy man that has the "drug dealer wad of cash in a money clip" treasure type. Maybe he's got a percent chance of being distracted talking loudly on his cell phone, much like a dragon's chance for being asleep, making for a great opportunity for a Pick Pockets roll. Whatever happens, Ted's story is created as we play the game out. There's no constructing it after the fact. There's no pre-determination before the fact. There's none of that baggage people add to the meaning of 'story' in order to claim a story isn't happening. The story is told in real time as the game progresses without any conscious effort. It's pretty straight-forward.

QuoteThere are... almost always exceptions.

Great. But I'm talking about the rule, not the exception.

QuoteAnd I already parse the fuck out of my posts trying to head off the nitpicker who drags some rare exception into the discussion. And it usually happens anyway, but at least I tried. If you want to nitpick my use of qualifiers, then we're going to spend far more time discussing terms than discussing the topic.

It's not a nitpick. It's a gaping hole. You're just plain incorrect. And you know it. That's why you parse the fuck out of your posts. You're saying something you know full well you can't defend, so you use qualifiers as cover. Which is EXACTLY what you've done in trying to claim what I'm bringing up is a rare exception. If you believe stories in the context of RPGs are linear, just say it. Without qualifiers. If you know full well you can't defend your statement without a qualifier like "typically", which is vague enough that it allows you to later dismiss, without facts, evidence or reason, any challenge to your statement, then you shouldn't be making the statement at all. You're trying to have it both ways--making a claim but not having to defend it.

QuoteAgain, we're getting into a rut over railroads.

Actually, no. We're not. There was literally nothing in that section about railroads.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 20, 2021, 12:21:08 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 10:51:32 PMWell, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.

I don't know who's saying that. Not me. I haven't said anything about constructing stories. And I haven't said anything about calling everything a storygame. I've said stories fit quite naturally into roleplaying games. I have indicated that virtually everything someone does IS a story. It happens automatically. There's no construction step necessary. "Ted wants cheese, so he goes to the store, finds the cheese he wants, and buys it," is a story. Maybe not a very good one. But it's a story.

Ted is a player character. He has the turophilia personality quirk. Maybe he doesn't know where in the store the cheese is, so he has to go on a dungeon crawl through the supermarket. Maybe he makes it through or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gives up. Maybe he finds the cheese but realizes it costs more money than he has. Maybe there's a random encounter with a hairy man that has the "drug dealer wad of cash in a money clip" treasure type. Maybe he's got a percent chance of being distracted talking loudly on his cell phone, much like a dragon's chance for being asleep, making for a great opportunity for a Pick Pockets roll. Whatever happens, Ted's story is created as we play the game out. There's no constructing it after the fact. There's no pre-determination before the fact. There's none of that baggage people add to the meaning of 'story' in order to claim a story isn't happening. The story is told in real time as the game progresses without any conscious effort. It's pretty straight-forward.

So you ARE re defining story to mean everything....

By your re definition people figthing in a war are telling a story.

They aren't, after the fact the survivors might or not tell stories about what they experienced, but while they were fighting the war they were trying to affect a change in the world, not trying to tell a story.

When the PC's in an RPG are doing stuff neither they nor the pleyers are trying to tell a story, they are trying to affect a change in the world.

Storytelling affects no change in world and can only happen after attempted effecting of change in world got it.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 20, 2021, 12:21:08 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 19, 2021, 10:51:32 PMWell, that isn't very helpful. If we're just going to say that an RPG is a storygame because we assign it a "story", then everything is a storygame because I can construct a story around anything.

I don't know who's saying that. Not me. I haven't said anything about constructing stories. And I haven't said anything about calling everything a storygame. I've said stories fit quite naturally into roleplaying games.

And I disagree.

QuoteI have indicated that virtually everything someone does IS a story. It happens automatically. There's no construction step necessary. "Ted wants cheese, so he goes to the store, finds the cheese he wants, and buys it," is a story. Maybe not a very good one. But it's a story.

You constructed a story, and then said you didn't construct a story by handwaving it as "automatic".

QuoteTed is a player character. He has the turophilia personality quirk. Maybe he doesn't know where in the store the cheese is, so he has to go on a dungeon crawl through the supermarket. Maybe he makes it through or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he gives up. Maybe he finds the cheese but realizes it costs more money than he has. Maybe there's a random encounter with a hairy man that has the "drug dealer wad of cash in a money clip" treasure type. Maybe he's got a percent chance of being distracted talking loudly on his cell phone, much like a dragon's chance for being asleep, making for a great opportunity for a Pick Pockets roll. Whatever happens, Ted's story is created as we play the game out. There's no constructing it after the fact. There's no pre-determination before the fact. There's none of that baggage people add to the meaning of 'story' in order to claim a story isn't happening. The story is told in real time as the game progresses without any conscious effort. It's pretty straight-forward.

QuoteThere are... almost always exceptions.

Great. But I'm talking about the rule, not the exception.

QuoteAnd I already parse the fuck out of my posts trying to head off the nitpicker who drags some rare exception into the discussion. And it usually happens anyway, but at least I tried. If you want to nitpick my use of qualifiers, then we're going to spend far more time discussing terms than discussing the topic.

It's not a nitpick. It's a gaping hole. You're just plain incorrect. And you know it. That's why you parse the fuck out of your posts. You're saying something you know full well you can't defend, so you use qualifiers as cover.

See below.

QuoteWhich is EXACTLY what you've done in trying to claim what I'm bringing up is a rare exception. If you believe stories in the context of RPGs are linear, just say it. Without qualifiers. If you know full well you can't defend your statement without a qualifier like "typically", which is vague enough that it allows you to later dismiss, without facts, evidence or reason, any challenge to your statement, then you shouldn't be making the statement at all. You're trying to have it both ways--making a claim but not having to defend it.

Completely wrong. I put qualifiers because, for example, sometimes stories are not linear. (Pulp Fiction, for example)

Quote

QuoteAgain, we're getting into a rut over railroads.

Actually, no. We're not. There was literally nothing in that section about railroads.

You were talking about the problems you encounter while sandboxing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 20, 2021, 12:26:54 AM
So you ARE re defining story to mean everything....

No. I'm using a common definition of story the way normal people use it. I'm specifically refusing to re-define it the way nerds do just for the sake of making their points in conversations like these.

QuoteBy your re definition people figthing in a war are telling a story.

No. It's not my definition. Nor is it a re-definition. And I haven't said the people doing the fighting in a war are telling anything.

QuoteWhen the PC's in an RPG are doing stuff neither they nor the pleyers are trying to tell a story, they are trying to affect a change in the world.

Players at the very least are telling me what their characters are doing. And I am telling them the results and what's happening in the world. Put it all together, and we end up with a description of incidents or events that we're collaboratively telling one another. Crossword puzzle time. What's a 5-letter word that starts with 's' and ends with 'y' that means "a description of incidents or events"?

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 20, 2021, 01:22:57 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 20, 2021, 12:26:54 AM
So you ARE re defining story to mean everything....

No. I'm using a common definition of story the way normal people use it. I'm specifically refusing to re-define it the way nerds do just for the sake of making their points in conversations like these.

QuoteBy your re definition people figthing in a war are telling a story.

No. It's not my definition. Nor is it a re-definition. And I haven't said the people doing the fighting in a war are telling anything.

QuoteWhen the PC's in an RPG are doing stuff neither they nor the pleyers are trying to tell a story, they are trying to affect a change in the world.

Players at the very least are telling me what their characters are doing. And I am telling them the results and what's happening in the world. Put it all together, and we end up with a description of incidents or events that we're collaboratively telling one another. Crossword puzzle time. What's a 5-letter word that starts with 's' and ends with 'y' that means "a description of incidents or events"?

Disingenuos too.

You ARE re-defining the word, in an RPG we need to say things because we use imagination, change to a CRPG, we don't need to use words, we can use the control/keyboard to make our PCs do the things. In neither case we are telling a story, we're affecting a change in the world (or trying to).

Now keep denying you're doing what you are doing and insisting that everything is a story.

Anything CAN be a story, after the fact. Those who witnessed it can tell about it, then it becomes a story, before that it was only history.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 19, 2021, 03:32:40 PM

If I say to a player, "Hey, I'm running AD&D tonight. Are you in?" and he replies with, "Well, what's the story?" I don't think he's implying that the game is not open-ended in nature...

If I've run the game in such a way that all the players had a great time, there's a good chance a few of them might say, "Hey, great story, man!" And I don't think they're implying that the game was not open-ended in nature.

I've never seen/heard either of these uses of 'story' across dozens of games and hundreds of players. I have occasionally seen/heard players say "Oh this must be the story now" meaning the linear campaign has finally raised its head in the sandbox.

Edit: Of course when players say "Oh, this must be the Story" = linear campaign, they mean a pre-written story. 'Storygames' means story-creation games like PBTA, which is kinda the opposite of playing someone else's pre-written story.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 18, 2021, 08:17:56 PM
As to why many people hate storygames, it was the constant incessant shilling by storygames advocates that finally pissed people off.

The important thing to remember is how storygames per se are not "evil" (*) and if you play them you do not become an evil person. Some RPG players were dissatisfied by the traditional way of playing, came up with new ideas and, as a side result, enriched the hobby.

I and my group played "Prime Time Adventures" and "Lacuna Part I" and we had a lot of fun (exp. with Lacuna: truly a fertile ground for creativity). It was nice to try different ways of playing. We, of course, also play "Mansions of Madness" and "7th Continent" (the boardgames with a strong storytelling component).

The problem with storygames was the absolute fanaticism by an ample portion of those who created/played them. Others are able to tell the story better than me. I will only say that the phenomenon led me to study, out of curiosity, similar things, like Scientology and deprogramming. Yes, it was that-level bad.

Italy was badly hit. Some "prophets" took root over here and they (and the followers) spoke only with absolutes. Basically, they always tried to justify the desire of others to play traditional RPGs as the result of brain damage, mind control, social pressure... "Your players don't like RPGs! They are forced to play them because they fear that they will be excluded from the group!" To them a simple...

"Well, what we want to do now?" "Why don't we try 'Achtung Cthulhu'? It seems cool!" "Everybody agrees? Fine, Federico is the keeper, session 0 next Saturday!"

...Couldn't exist. Either you lied or the players were "forced" to agree due to various mental/social disorders.

These "Forgites" were so hated over here that, back in the day (early 2010), I found myself savagely attacked on their Italian forum for saying: "Listen, I'm glad that you found your way of playing, and some of your games are cool, but it is only a way of playing..." and at the same time savagely attacked on this forum for saying "Let's not throw out the baby with the water: some games are objectively cool, a different experience is always welcome, and this is what really matters..." No one, as you can see, can claim sole ownership of stupidity ::).

(*) Because, of course, "Evil Games" are bad game design...  ;D

Ron Edwards definitely set himself up as a cult leader, using the standard techniques that inculcate a circle of slavishly devoted fanatics (while driving off everyone else). There's a standard modus operandi; I got a bit of a shock experiencing it on Ron's Forge forums way back, but it was a good learning experience as I was then able to recognise the techniques when I came across them again later, eg the alt-righter Vox Day does the same thing on his blog.

See, when someone says 'storygames' my mind immediately blipverts to 'diceless' like Amber, or Nobilis.

To me, it's all improv, with some dice for an added bit of random chance. If I'm laughing, facepalming, have a deranged grin, or cracking my knuckles, it's a good game. I can wring entertainment out of all but the most obdurate systems.

(The deranged grin comes out a lot in the D&D game I'm running, especially when the wild mage starts casting a spell.)