I'm not looking for a flamewar, and frankly I'm not that interested in this, but I wanted to reply to Imperator and not derail this thread in the process.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;455531Different opinions are being called storygames and ghettoized in the "other games" section. That's toxic.

Quote from: Claudius;455568The roleplaying games forum is about, you know, roleplaying games. Not games in general. Some forgie (isn't it what you mean?) games are roleplaying games, but others are not, and therefore they don't belong in the RPG forum.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;455569What's a roleplaying game and what not is a matter of opinion,

Quote from: Claudius;455574In a few cases the distinction may be blurry, but in general, it's clear. RuneQuest is an RPG, Conspiracy of Shadows is an RPG, Universalis is not.

Quote from: Imperator;456087I'm not looking to start yet another discussion, but I have played a lot of Universalis and it's an RPG as any other.

I haven't read Universalis, but I have read reviews, and frankly I find it hard to consider it an RPG. It has no GM, no "this is my character", no adventure in the traditional sense. To me, it's as roleplaying game as Munchkin or Magic the Gathering!

There are different forms of roleplaying, Live-action, computer, MMORPGs, etc. Universalis is not a tabletop RPG, but it own form of roleplaying game. Tabletop RPGs are characterized by players describing the actions of their characters within a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee. The story is the result of describing what the player did which by nature of the game can't be predetermined ahead of time.  Because nobody can predict what a player is going to do with his character or all the factors that go into a referee decision on the character's actions.

The original D&D books say nothing about characterization, or role-playing.  People made up those procedures for play as they went along.  Variances in procedure were common.

I think the line is about as clear as that, although maybe a bit clearer because people these days have become more articulate about how they game and are able to describe how to play in much clearer terms.

As I understand it is where story takes precidence over all else or when "God given" conventions of traditional games (presence of a GM, no PVP, not a compettition etc.) are challenged.

There are some games that in Pundy's definition fall in something of a middle ground and I have a feeling when he reads it he'll highlight Tough Justice as one of them.

Quote from: Claudius;456263I haven't read Universalis, but I have read reviews, and frankly I find it hard to consider it an RPG. It has no GM, no "this is my character", no adventure in the traditional sense. To me, it's as roleplaying game as Munchkin or Magic the Gathering!

It's definitely not an RPG in the same vein as traditional rpgs.  It's mainly a storygame.   It uses elements of story control, and has a metarule system for narrative control that players interact with.  The actual in-character "role-playing" is mainly seeing if all the metagame stuff produced the actual outcome in play.

Do you play a role in Universalis?  Yeah, so you could call it a role-playing game.  You spend more time engaged in the storybuilding elements, so it's a storygame, one with role-playing elements.

It's definitely more of a RPG then Munchkin, but not much.

Where is the line?

Well first, it's not a line, it's more of a zone, with some clearly on one side or the other and some to different degrees in the middle.

If the mechanics of the game function primarily as a "physics engine" to determine the outcome of character actions, and the primary mode of play is to pretend you are a character in a fictional world, it's a roleplaying game.

If the mechanics of the game include metagame elements to define things in terms of story, theme, plot, and deal with concepts such as narrative control, which requires characters to spend time playing the metagame as well as the actual role-playing, it's a storygame.

It's a line of urine RPGPundit draws in the sand.

Quote from: Claudius;456263I haven't read Universalis, but I have read reviews, and frankly I find it hard to consider it an RPG. It has no GM, no "this is my character", no adventure in the traditional sense. To me, it's as roleplaying game as Munchkin or Magic the Gathering!

Hmmm. It's true that there is no GM in the rules, nor is character ownership. I'm not sure that those traits wouldn't emerge during play. They certainly did in games I played that are somewhat similar in their set-up.

Then again, there are no motivations, quirks and relationships in D&D's rules. Still, they often emerge during play, and we like it that way.

Quote from: Peregrin;456272The original D&D books say nothing about characterization, or role-playing.  People made up those procedures for play as they went along.  Variances in procedure were common.

I think the line is about as clear as that, although maybe a bit clearer because people these days have become more articulate about how they game and are able to describe how to play in much clearer terms.

But it was explicit that the game was about players playing a character in a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456276Where is the line?

Well first, it's not a line, it's more of a zone, with some clearly on one side or the other and some to different degrees in the middle.

If the mechanics of the game function primarily as a "physics engine" to determine the outcome of character actions, and the primary mode of play is to pretend you are a character in a fictional world, it's a roleplaying game.

If the mechanics of the game include metagame elements to define things in terms of story, theme, plot, and deal with concepts such as narrative control, which requires characters to spend time playing the metagame as well as the actual role-playing, it's a storygame.

That seems about right to me. Which role am I playing, Conan or John Milius?

Greg Stafford was right on in 1989 when he called his Prince Valiant a "storytelling game". He addressed some things more forthrightly, in more of a real game fashion, than the "railroad" scenarios for AD&D and so on.

Nowadays, I gather, there's been such a shift in some quarters that PV is nowhere near enough of a departure to be anything but a "traditional RPG". The standard for a "story telling" game gets pushed to an extreme, and then some people still insist not only that it's just an RPG but that anything involving what we old-timers call actual role-playing is not an RPG.

It's crazy. If D&D had so redefined 'wargaming', then D-Day and Afrika Korps would be right out.

Didn't someone around here have a line in their sig that said something like it's not a rpg if the pc's can't die against their will?  That sounds about right.

Oh bollocks that's Tough Justice's core rules (there is an optional mechanic in the Advanced rules though)

Quote from: mhensley;456289Didn't someone around here have a line in their sig that said something like it's not a rpg if the pc's can't die against their will?  That sounds about right.

Pierce Inverarity did, quoting Melan or Sett, IIRC.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;456283It's a line of urine RPGPundit draws in the sand.

Like.

There is no hard line that can be drawn. At best, you might be able to make some kind of Venn diagram, but really, it's a kind of continuum with no clear division. There are boardgames which have role-playing elements. There are role-playing games that have board-game elements. Storygames can fall into one category, both categories, or their own. Trying to draw firm lines is a kind of tribalism, and in my experience, angry. We're all fans of table-top gaming. How about that?

Universalis might actually be the only game that I have played that I could absolutely call a "story game." I haven't played WUSHU, though that seems like a "story game" as well since it is driven by narratives.

Primetime Adventures would probably be considered a story game by some.

I enjoyed Primetime Adventures, though it was far different from traditional play with its mechanics. Fan mail is fun. Having spotlight sessions for each character was fun. It made sure everyone at the table had a chance to be the big hero at least once.

I thought Universalis had an interesting way to co-create the setting for the stories, but it actually played out like a giant pissing contest full of one-upsmanship. One of the few games that I have tried that I won't be playing again.

There are other RPGs that I have tried with narrative elements, like Dogs in the Vineyard or FATE-based Spirit of the Century, but I consider them to be RPGs.

This is why the definition is pointless. Dogs in the Vineyard is considered to be a story game by many. But myself and others consider it to be an RPG. I don't think there is a clear definition to be found. And I certainly wouldn't allow the Pundit to be the final arbiter on what is and isn't a story game.

I find that the "story game" label as tossed around on this forum is just too divisive and exclusionary. This is something that our hobby doesn't need any more than divisive labels like "Swine" or the elements of "GNS."