Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2024, 04:25:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on April 05, 2024, 02:35:58 AM
Did you run any of the published modules? I don't have them all, but the ones I have are divided into literally "Act One", "The Major Beat", "Scene 1", "Scene 2", "Scene 3", and so forth. There is a long storyline, and every scene is laid out for it.

I don't mean to single out Torg, because the vast majority of published modules are pretty linear - but some games embrace that more thoroughly than others, and I thought the scope of explicit acts and scenes in structure were more blatant than some other games.

And yet the modules still play as normal modules. You people seriously need to stop taking things at face value. Just because WW called their games Storytelling does not automatically make them so. And just because Torg modules used Act, or Scene does not make it a storygame or railroad. They are somewhat linear. But not lockdown like the rare few that are pretty railroads.

Well, if jhkim was actually interested in discussion, he'd immediately recognize the difference between terminology and gameplay.  But, since he is "defending" storygames (or that storygames are RPGs or elements of storygames have always been in RPGs, or whatever "no, your distinction isn't true because of this one minor exception" that he always babbles out), he will suddenly become a drooling moron when it comes to any nuance (unless it's a nuance he plans to use).

Having played Torg a bunch when it first came out (I still have the mottled d20 that came in the original box set that I use for "special" rolls), it had its issues mechanically, but they weren't storygame mechanics at all.  Railroady sometimes, maybe, but not "collaborative fiction" in any sense.

I wonder if the folks who are objecting to you here are purposely mis-defining storygames, or if they are just that dense...

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 05, 2024, 01:37:33 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 03, 2024, 07:01:06 PM
A lot of storygames are made to do a pretty specific sort of thing.  They work pretty well to do that thing but start falling part if you want to do anything else. 

In other words, a design failure (see "living world" or ask Pundit about it). A game that is good for only a single thing cannot be considered good in any way.

Specialization is good, overspecialization like this is universally bad.

"Monopoly" begs to differ on that opinion about specialization. It only does one type of game well too.

Remember, Storygames aren't RPGs.

Trying to use a storygame to run an RPG and expecting it to be good for that is as unrealistic as trying to use Monopoly to run a dungeon delve.

Calling a Storygame a failure because you can't use it to run an RPG is like calling a hammer a failure because you can't use it as a scroll saw.

We get it; you don't like hammers and trying to add hammer-like features to a scroll saw is silly and should be prevented. It doesn't make a hammer intrinsically bad; just not something that does what you're interested in.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2024, 07:52:00 AM
Well, if jhkim was actually interested in discussion, he'd immediately recognize the difference between terminology and gameplay.

He's just arguing to argue, there's no way around it. Vampire is a regular fucking RPG, it's not a "storygame" in the sense this thread uses it and he knows it, but it obliquely "proves" his point in some twisted ass way. Sometimes he posts useful stuff, sometimes it's just trolling bullshit, but the problem is he can't even tell when he's doing it, so is it really trolling?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2024, 07:52:00 AM
Having played Torg a bunch when it first came out (I still have the mottled d20 that came in the original box set that I use for "special" rolls), it had its issues mechanically, but they weren't storygame mechanics at all.  Railroady sometimes, maybe, but not "collaborative fiction" in any sense.

I never said that Torg was "collaborative fiction". Here was what I said regarding Torg:

Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2024, 09:12:15 PM
Most of the story games from The Forge and its descendants were a reaction against railroaded modules. They were by designers who hated how players were railroaded, and instead wanted to give players GM-like power to control the story so that railroading was impossible. That's not to everyone's taste, but it's a very different thing than railroading.

The cluster of games that most embraced railroading were the 1990s trend of cinematic action games like Deadlands and Torg. There was a period in the 1990s when modules - including many D&D modules - were often written with an explicit sequence of acts and scenes.

Quote from: jhkim on April 05, 2024, 10:35:31 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2024, 07:52:00 AM
Having played Torg a bunch when it first came out (I still have the mottled d20 that came in the original box set that I use for "special" rolls), it had its issues mechanically, but they weren't storygame mechanics at all.  Railroady sometimes, maybe, but not "collaborative fiction" in any sense.

I never said that Torg was "collaborative fiction". Here was what I said regarding Torg:

Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2024, 09:12:15 PM
Most of the story games from The Forge and its descendants were a reaction against railroaded modules. They were by designers who hated how players were railroaded, and instead wanted to give players GM-like power to control the story so that railroading was impossible. That's not to everyone's taste, but it's a very different thing than railroading.

The cluster of games that most embraced railroading were the 1990s trend of cinematic action games like Deadlands and Torg. There was a period in the 1990s when modules - including many D&D modules - were often written with an explicit sequence of acts and scenes.

No, you lying twat, this is what you said about Torg in the very quote that was in my post:

QuoteDid you run any of the published modules? I don't have them all, but the ones I have are divided into literally "Act One", "The Major Beat", "Scene 1", "Scene 2", "Scene 3", and so forth. There is a long storyline, and every scene is laid out for it.

I don't mean to single out Torg, because the vast majority of published modules are pretty linear - but some games embrace that more thoroughly than others, and I thought the scope of explicit acts and scenes in structure were more blatant than some other games.

And you said it in response to this statement:

QuoteSorry to burst your bubble but Torg was not even remotely railroad or storygame. It had the card element but that was it and it had a defined system of what you could and could not do. I know. I was there for the playtests and GMed it alot.

And collaborative fiction is one of the hallmarks of storygames...

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 08:14:13 AM
"Monopoly" begs to differ on that opinion about specialization. It only does one type of game well too.

We're talking about RPGs and adjacent space games, not about boardgames. Your argument is irrelevant.

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 05, 2024, 12:46:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 08:14:13 AM
"Monopoly" begs to differ on that opinion about specialization. It only does one type of game well too.

We're talking about RPGs and adjacent space games, not about boardgames. Your argument is irrelevant.

I don't see how.

You're yelling that something not designed to be an RPG (games Pundit normally bans talking about on the RPG thread for being off-topic) sucks when you try to use it as an RPG and that makes it bad..: because it can't do what it was never designed to do.

Complaining that a Storygame is bad because it is too specialized to be a good RPG is identical to saying Monopoly is bad because it is too specialized to be a good RPG.

Something not doing what it was never designed to do doesn't make it intrinsically bad.  You judge a board game on how well it plays as a board game. You should judge a story game on well it plays as a story game... because it's NOT an RPG.

It's also fine to not like story games (or board games or war games or rpgs), but saying a story game is bad for not being an rpg is literally the same as saying a hammer is badly designed because you can't saw lumber with it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 04:54:17 PM
... because it's NOT an RPG

This is literally it. Period. Storygames are not RPGs. Just like writers or directors are not actors.

It really isn't that complicated.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 04:54:17 PM

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 05, 2024, 12:46:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 08:14:13 AM
"Monopoly" begs to differ on that opinion about specialization. It only does one type of game well too.

We're talking about RPGs and adjacent space games, not about boardgames. Your argument is irrelevant.

I don't see how.

You're yelling that something not designed to be an RPG (games Pundit normally bans talking about on the RPG thread for being off-topic) sucks when you try to use it as an RPG and that makes it bad..: because it can't do what it was never designed to do.

Complaining that a Storygame is bad because it is too specialized to be a good RPG is identical to saying Monopoly is bad because it is too specialized to be a good RPG.

Something not doing what it was never designed to do doesn't make it intrinsically bad.  You judge a board game on how well it plays as a board game. You should judge a story game on well it plays as a story game... because it's NOT an RPG.

It's also fine to not like story games (or board games or war games or rpgs), but saying a story game is bad for not being an rpg is literally the same as saying a hammer is badly designed because you can't saw lumber with it.

I do not understand if you're far too dense to comprehend the issue or if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing (but I suspect the former).
The problem is not that storygames are (of course) not RPGs, the problem is that fucking storygamers keep pushing their design errors in RPG space pretending that they are legitimate and correct choices, ignoring whoever says to them that whatever they're peddling violates basic design principles and unwritten conventions based on a 50 years history.

Having said that, do not bother to reply since you're going to the ignore list. I'm amused by stupidity but up to a certain point.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 05, 2024, 10:54:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 04:54:17 PM
... because it's NOT an RPG

This is literally it. Period. Storygames are not RPGs. Just like writers or directors are not actors.

It really isn't that complicated.

I don't like PbtA, and I think I don't like storygames because I find the way the systems work not to my liking. However, if "Storygames" are not RPGs then what are RPGs?

Is D&D and RPG just because it says it on the label? Because then PbtA also fits that idea. What makes D&D a true(TM) RPG and PbtA a storygame?

And if PbtA is not a storygame, then what is a storygame?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2024, 07:52:00 AM

I wonder if the folks who are objecting to you here are purposely mis-defining storygames, or if they are just that dense...

Sometimes feels like just that damn dense. "Me see storytelling! Game MUST be storytelling!!!"

I can just see these morons defending D&D Idle RPG as being a really real RPG because it says RPG in teh titlez!" you know. A game that plays itself and has no role playing at all.

Quote from: Corolinth on April 05, 2024, 03:15:03 PM

Nice try but this is not a dead horse. Its someone trying to claim A is B when A is not B. Again.

Quote from: FingerRod on April 05, 2024, 10:54:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 04:54:17 PM
... because it's NOT an RPG

This is literally it. Period. Storygames are not RPGs. Just like writers or directors are not actors.

It really isn't that complicated.

According to storygamers actors are really real "role playing". Because their definition is "everything on earth"

Quote from: Cipher on April 06, 2024, 02:28:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 05, 2024, 10:54:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 04:54:17 PM... because it's NOT an RPG

This is literally it. Period. Storygames are not RPGs. Just like writers or directors are not actors.

It really isn't that complicated.

I don't like PbtA, and I think I don't like storygames because I find the way the systems work not to my liking. However, if "Storygames" are not RPGs then what are RPGs?

Is D&D and RPG just because it says it on the label? Because then PbtA also fits that idea. What makes D&D a true(TM) RPG and PbtA a storygame?

And if PbtA is not a storygame, then what is a storygame?

Sorry for the delay, Cipher.

An abstract example would be a marionette, that goofy puppet with strings held from above a little box or stage area.

You are playing an RPG if you control the puppet, speak as it, and interact with the set/stage using only your puppet. You are playing a single role. If you paint the set, manufacture set changes/add elements, or control the actions of other puppets, then you are playing a story game.

RPGs today dip their toe into story game elements. Bad roleplay does as well, usually by narrating not only your action but the environment around you. There is a tipping point, the point when Justice Stewart would "know it when he saw it".

PBTA puts a full foot into it. Degrees of success, the narration control given to players, and the HST mechanic are examples. The MC maintains a lot of narrative control, just not as much as a GM/DM. By the time you get to FATE or Fiasco, both feet are in.

Quote from: Omega on April 06, 2024, 04:11:02 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 05, 2024, 10:54:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 05, 2024, 04:54:17 PM... because it's NOT an RPG

This is literally it. Period. Storygames are not RPGs. Just like writers or directors are not actors.

It really isn't that complicated.

According to storygamers actors are really real "role playing". Because their definition is "everything on earth"

Exactly.