Quote from: Simlasa;980602There seems to be a general cultural thing where it's not enough to be good at something ... that you must 'murder'/'destroy'/'kill' your competition in some ritualized act of humiliation.
Similarly, if you like a thing, then any other thing claiming to occupy its niche must be lesser and in fact 'suck'.
I saw it yesterday at a party for a twelve year old who received a PS4 for his birthday. As his parents were setting it up for him he was on his phone, seeking out videos and comments that asserted his new device was the best... how machines from other manufacturers were not as good. He played these videos loudly and quoted factoids about how he now had the best machines and his friends were 'dumb' for thinking they had good gaming.

Not that his being 12 matters, because I've seen the same behavior in myself and others of many more years.

Yeah, and?  I mean you're right.  But that "cultural thing" can go in both directions.  And it gets a response either way.  I mean this thread could easily be posted on a "story game" forum with the title "Why the hate for trad rpgs?" right?

All I can do is try and answer the question posed.  I "hate" (probably too strong a word but meh) storygame elements in rpgs because they have a negative impact on MY PERSONAL sense of immersion.

Quote from: Krimson;980605My personal definition is an RPG with metagame mechanics which allow players to affect change in the story without character agency. So a thief like character which searches for a secret door even with a mechanic like Inspiration which gives a bonus is not a storygame, but a player using some sort of point to make a secret door where one may or may not have existed would be a storygame.

Do you have an example of a game that does that or is it a purely theoretical example?

Is there such a mechanic in a storygame? That's not how the storygames I'm familiar with operate at all. They are much broader than that. To me Fiasco, HGMO, 1001 Nights, perhaps Dread are true storygames. One metagame mechanic does not a storygame make. To me, multiclassing is a metagame mechanic but that doesn't make AD&D a storygame.

I've never played or read much Fate...is that a mechanic in Fate?

Quote from: Voros;980604Yeah but you claimed you never saw it...

Regardless, I think we mostly agree on the essentials. I can see why some find unfamilar mechanics and player input or real storygames immersion-breaking.

I do find some of the immersion talk a bit puzzling though. As Gary Alan Fine notes RPG players flip between at least three 'frames' during play all the time with no break in immersion: game world, mechanics and RL (not his terms btw).

So the classic example is a player saying something like: 'I pull out my sword and charge him, I roll to attack, pass the chips.'

Yeah, immersion is a fickle beast.

Quote from: Simlasa;980602There seems to be a general cultural thing where it's not enough to be good at something ... that you must 'murder'/'destroy'/'kill' your competition in some ritualized act of humiliation.
Similarly, if you like a thing, then any other thing claiming to occupy its niche must be lesser and in fact 'suck'.
I saw it yesterday at a party for a twelve year old who received a PS4 for his birthday. As his parents were setting it up for him he was on his phone, seeking out videos and comments that asserted his new device was the best... how machines from other manufacturers were not as good. He played these videos loudly and quoted factoids about how he now had the best machine and his friends were 'dumb' for thinking they had good gaming.

Not that his being 12 matters, because I've seen the same behavior in myself and others of many more years.

SPOT ON! Just take a look at the current state of American Politics - perfect example.

Okay, so we've established "because people fucking overreact to everything."

Anything else you'd like to discuss along this line, Grove?

Quote from: Voros;980607Do you have an example of a game that does that or is it a purely theoretical example?

Is there such a mechanic in a storygame? That's not how the storygames I'm familiar with operate at all. They are much broader than that. To me Fiasco, HGMO, 1001 Nights, perhaps Dread are true storygames. One metagame mechanic does not a storygame make. To me, multiclassing is a metagame mechanic but that doesn't make AD&D a storygame.

I've never played or read much Fate...is that a mechanic in Fate?

Gee, now that I have to think of an example, I'm starting to have doubts about my original assertion. My experience is limited with Fate. With Cortex Plus Heroic, particularly Marvel Heroic, a system which does have some fate like mechanics, there is such a mechanic baked right in, in the form of Unlockables, where you can spend XP to Unlock temporary allies or circumstances which will shift the scene into your favor. Also, if the Narrator gains 2d12 into the Doom Pool they can spend those to close the scene. Similarly there is an option for a player to spend 10XP to accomplish a similar goal. I mean, it's not a bad system and probably bar none the easiest system to run for Play by Post games next to Window, and the Narrator does have final arbitration. So a player could spend the 10XP to close a scene, and does gain the right to describe how the scene ends, but the Narrator has to decide if the scene ends in favor of the players or the NPCs. Now Cortex Heroic does have a possibility of character death, but closing a scene with 2d12 for the Narrator or 10 XP for the player kind of mitigates that, which could be handy when things are looking grim for the heroes.

Now, your point about multiclassing being a metamechanic is a valid point. The idea of classes is certainly a metamechanic but a forgivable one because they are very useful. I'm thinking more of metamechanics that can actually affect events in games. But then, I think of a certain edition and Charisma and Diplomacy or Intimidation and how you can charm or threaten your ways through certain scenarios. But as you said, that doesn't make it a storygame.

So I guess I'll have to think about it some more, or go back to not caring.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980587I think what most of us are saying is it kills immersion FOR US.  If it doesn't for you then enjoy your story game.  Just don't call me an ass and tell me my game stinks because I can't get past those narrative/story elements.

Well, I wouldn't do that but there is plenty of crap tossed at people that do enjoy those elements in their games here to be fair.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980606Yeah, and?  I mean you're right.  But that "cultural thing" can go in both directions.  And it gets a response either way.  I mean this thread could easily be posted on a "story game" forum with the title "Why the hate for trad rpgs?" right?

Of course it can go either way.
There are often good reasons people like/dislike a thing. I think 'immersion' or dislike of 'GM fiat' or enjoying 'collaborative storytelling' are all real reasons... but the emotions attached are out of proportion... similar to the vitriol and outright violence that sports fans engage in over 'teams' that are mere symbolic differences... especially when the people on those 'teams' get traded around from one to another.

Doesn't matter who threw the first "your game sucks!" It's that old human urge to form tribes and wage war... squeaking out into anything and everything. On some level the same stuff is going on in forums about knitting and cupcakes and quantum physics.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980545Okay, what's wrong with my reading comprehension?  I could have sworn the first posting was asking the question "where does all the hate and vitriol on both sides come from," not "why don't you like narrativist stuff," despite the title of the thread.

Because he invariably slips in some little bit to 'justify' his gaming style as right and valid and ok. And then uses some example that amounts to.
"Well those people over there set themselves on fire and lived? And I set myself on fire and lived. So setting yourself on fire is perfectly fine."
Rather than just saying.
"This is how I game and its different from how some others game."

Theres allways that need to justify it. And so someones bound to notice it. Again. And open fire with a nice broadside.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495Within the first couple of weeks of my joining the forum here I got involved in some heated debate regarding GM style. I dont want to bring any of that up again, Please God! But upon doing a lot of reading around the net since that time I have come to realize that there are a ton of gamers on either side of the fence upon which those threads were flaming. There are whole articles dedicated to the art of narrative elements, story gaming, railroading or whatever one wants to call it, just as there are those condemning it. Chalk it up to preference of course but... my question is where does the angst come from?

It would seem that its obviously just a different approach and as RPGs are played any of a thousand different ways you wouldnt think the arguments would be so staunch. Its not like we are talking politics or something? Where do you think the apparent hatred for story gaming by the pure sandbox guys comes from and for that matter, visa versa?

Some of us have been saying this for a long long time. Well before "storygaming" became a cult. And therein was the problem. Some fans and designers treated it like a cult and set out to undermine and 'convert' other peoples gaming or decry their designs or style as wrong and of course all hell broke loose.

The other problem is the extreme ends of the storygaming fans. The ones that make lunatic claims like "Reading a book is really real Role Playing" and such. Or the types who despise DMs and set out to create games to either remove the DM, or fetter them as much as possible. Some to the point the DM is little more than a vend-bot.

And alot of other stupid things that generate ire.

The simple fact is that from probably day one it hit the shelves some people were taking D&D and playing every style imaginable. EVERY STYLE. There is nothing wrong with that. It just might not appeal to some players. It might repulse some players even. But thats just one little possible problem in a rather long list of things that can make "no gaming is better than bad gaming" for an individual.

All that said. Like any style. Used wrongly its BAD gaming. Either it turns away one or more players, or creates a wrong impression of how all games are played. Story gaming, just like sandboxing, or modules, or whatever, when used well is great. Any of those used poorly can be HELL.

As I've said to people on various fora.
"If your players are enjoying what you are doing and coming back for more. Then you are doing something right."

If everyone dressed in character has the players begging for more. Then dont ask why. Just enjoy the fact you have players liking what you are doing. If having an overall plot or outcome in mind that the players cant change is met with enthusiasm. Then dont ask why. Just enjoy the fact you have players liking what you are doing.
and so on.

The vitriol came about because storygamers were led by Ron Edwards, who said that bad gaming (by "bad" he meant D&D) caused actual brain damage; when asked to clarify, he said it was just like child sexual abuse. So the nastiness was instigated by storygamers. Until that guy came along, storygamers were regarded by the rest of us as like diceless gamers (to whom they are closely related) - odd, but harmless.

Then we got tired of the pretension. Nobody was just gaming, they were exploring important themes, and so on. Like the "game" We All Had Names, which is about being Jews dying in the Holocaust. Masturbatory virtue signalling, and all that.

I think trad here refers to OD&D style sandboxing. But I'm not clear if the other side is linear railroading (pre-set story) or story-creation game (story created in play by group on a meta level). Even within the 'trad' side some people think of it as about full sandboxing in an open world, some people (eg most on Dragonsfoot, IME) think of it in terms of running a series of site-based adventures like the mostly Tournament-based ones TSR published from the late '70s on. That's at least 4 distinct types of play to me, and they all have potential strengths & weaknesses.

Possible weaknesses:
1. Full Status Quo Sandbox - Players say "What do we do?" GM says "You're too short for this ride" or "Oops yer dead". Great for immersion though. With a bit of starting GM direction this is my favourite style these days, but can take more GM work than the other approaches.
2. Site based Adventure String - lack of feeling there's a world beyond the adventure. But decent for immersion & clearly something to do. Clear 'game' challenge.
3. Linear Railroad, scripted scenes - near-complete lack of player agency. Decent for immersion, plus players typically get to 'experience' a story much like with passive media or linear computer games - the prewritten story can be a lot more detailed & dramatic than in site-based play.
4. Storygame - Discards immersion as a goal - "not really an RPG". Agency shifts from PC to player. Can create stories that are a lot of fun in the moment, though probably make less sense than the prewritten linear type - in fact they likely make less sense than the stories that emerge naturally from pure sandbox play.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;980634The vitriol came about because storygamers were led by Ron Edwards, who said that bad gaming (by "bad" he meant D&D) caused actual brain damage; when asked to clarify, he said it was just like child sexual abuse.

He was referring to linear railroad games, most notably scenarios written for the "Storyteller" game system - eg Vampire: The Masquerade. And by extension 2e AD&D railroad scenarios, but that was never the primary target.

Edwards was always an immense jerk who could not understand Simulation gaming or immersion, and thus denigrated both. His cult leader style did considerable damage to the hobby IMO, for a while. But he was never hostile to OD&D sandbox gaming, especially not when it focused purely on Gamist challenge.

I dislike much of the terminology of the 'story-game' movement, including questionable definitions and the tendency to tribalise and proselytise particular games and systems over others, as opposed to any particular objections to games themselves.

For example, I dislike the term 'traditional' - which implies that certain games are orthodox and uncreative in their design - or 'simulationist' which is largely used as an insult by some.