TheRPGSite

Within 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?

Q: Why the hate for narrative/story elements in a RPG?

A: If you mean games where the GM is "telling a story" and the players "contribute to a story," it's probably because immersion is minimal to nonexistent and it's more metagaming than gaming, would  be my guess. I like to pretend I'm the character, not to pretend I'm writing a story about the character.

Best post you've ever made.

This seems to be an inherent part of human nature, manifesting itself in the gaming nerd community.  "What I like is RIGHT and what you like is WRONG!"

This is not isolated to gaming.  Sports fans get into fistfights over teams.  Model railroaders... HAH!  Find "Model Railroader" magazine in a library from the 40s and 50s and read it.  They couldn't swear, but the way grown men talked to each other about whose toy trains are better makes gamers sound like a bunch of pikers.  Wargamers -- for some reason, Napoleonics is the "king of Wargaming" and if you like another period, you're wrong.

I'm sure given time, we could find another thousand examples.

And, of course, for most people, once somebody says "Your preference is WRONG" instead of merely different, the natural reaction is to counterattack.

I don't know WHY human beings are like this, you understand.  But the incredible venom with which they assert the correctness of their choices seems to be a feature of the species.

When the storygames movement first began, there was a prophet. He proclaimed "the old ways" as brain damaged and predatory and exclaimed the new ways as sacred. Many heard his words and followed him.

Some who loved the old ways also followed, intrigued by the passion and movement following this new prophet.

But the games did not play anything like the old games. In fact, they were unto themselves a new type of game. But the prophet hated the creators of the old games and wanted them to be cleansed from the Earth. The new games would be described as better versions of the old games. They would replace the old games and make the world of games better for it.

Some of the people who appreciated the old games, and were tricked by the demagoguery of the new games, grew angry at the new games prophets for trying to destroy the old games' ways.

And so the Story Games Wars began!

Amongst the traditional gamers arose a counter-prophet. His truth rang hard and direct. He fought in front, with courage, taking the slings and arrows of his enemies in stride, never relenting.

The war was long fought, with many casualties on both sides - the memes plumed thick across the InterTubes, the rhetoric spewed vitriolic fire that sapped the enthusiasm from the most dedicated of adherents. The Prophets and their adherents waged holy war across every corner of the web, no forum was untouched, no user-group unturned! The battle raged so fierce that many worried ALL games would be consumed by it's rage!!

But alas, as all wars go... a ceasefire settled across the empty battlefields. There was nothing left to give.

ALL gamers gained clarity on the truth. There is not one true way. Story Games are of their own kind and traditional RPGs remain of their own kind. You can play either or both, and enjoy either or both. Equally. If one discusses their passion with enthusiasm without trying to erase or ruin the other, then that sincerity reigns true, and peace can be known across the gamer-verse.

And so it was written. The Story Games Wars came to a close. Each side claiming victory and yet no side gaining triumph.

And we were all wiser for it.

Just to be clear, up above I was trying to answer your question. Personally I  don't care about the gaming habits or styles of people I've never met, am unlikely to ever meet, and am not forced to play games with, so I don't know why gamers get fixated on it.

It's like caring whether someone in De Moines has a pink flamingo on his lawn because here in San Diego I prefer to have a gnome in my rock garden.

For myself, I think placing too much emphasis on story elements ignores the game/simulation aspect.  And that's not how I like to play. Now, standard disclaimer, play however you like, if you're having fun, you're doing it right, yadda yadda.

As Techrion said, there was a push from some sectors of the gaming community to put their story style above gamist/simulationist as objectively better. And so there was a lot of pushback, and a lot of flame wars.

http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Theory/Threefold/GNS.htm

I think another major reason is the desire of some gamers to play a game of the type where there is a situation that they can experience in the way of exploring and trying things and having impartial rules determine chances of unknown actions etc, as in a wargame with fog of war and a referee. If/when they find out that they spent days thinking they were playing such a game, and then find out that the GM was pretending to them that's what was going on, but in fact was doing something quite different, such as he wanted to tell a story he pre-conceived, and so was changing the situation and the rolls and outcomes to make that story happen, there can be some natural upset & disappointment.

Combine this with a variety of published products which say different things all over the spectrum, the infinite combinations of personal taste, the desire for agreement, and then all the weird polite-police forums and ranting rambling blog posts and general Interwebs confusion, and you get a lot of people with strong and/or confused opinions who will gladly erupt into ranting when given a place to opine and vent.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495There 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 metagaming and is a form of cheating in a RPG campaign by allowing the players to do things that their characters couldn't do because of their abilities.

I don't have a problem with narrative games as along as they are honest about being their own thing focused on collaborative storytelling. I do think trying to use a wargame as engine for collaborative storytelling is overkill that there other ways that millions are using for this kind of thing. (Google for collaborative fan fiction).

Personally, I think it's impossible to play a game in which you try to "tell a story."  By that I mean rpgs are not novels or short stories...when I am a player in an rpg I'm interested in doing stuff, figuring out what happens when I do stuff, and then choosing what stuff I want to do next.  I'm not interested in fulfilling my character's pre-ordained narrative/dramatic story arc.  If fate (aka "the dice") determine that my character slips on a ledge and falls to his death on his way into the dungeon, so be it.  That guy was one of life's sorry shlubs rather than Conan.  Perhaps the next guy will be more heroic.  

Just like when I get up in the morning with a plan for the day.  That plan almost never includes things like getting a flat tire or running out of gas, tripping and falling down a flight of stairs, getting a cold...reality includes all sorts of things that nobody would plan for themselves.  I want the game world to feel like a sort of reality...not a novel where things happen because the story dictates it.

estar points to another way narrative games can be very much a different thing from trad RPGs and games, which is having the players make up stuff that would traditionally be the domain of the GM or game situation, whether it's description, situation, or outcome of an action. For many players who like a trad game, those make the game quite not what they want, so games and players that would otherwise be interesting, but then add those elements with a touch of "isn't this great?" can be upsetting and inspire loud expressions of "no!" Similar responses for players and GMs who do like those narrative elements and who aren't sensitive to why they're not wanted by others. Especially when we've been trying to not be annoyed on some moderated/censored overly-PC place like rpg.stackexchange, where on such a topic there may be 100+ upvotes for "GMs should use the same page tool" instead.

In my own case, I'm also frequently disappointed by _fiction_ where the narrative elements seem lazy and forced and the supposed situation and logic is given little or no attention in favor of the "cool" story. I'm also amazed how many people don't share my interest in story logic, continuity, plausibility, etc., in both fiction and games, and I tend to vent my incredulity and disapproval on Interwebs forums from time to time.

Speaking from my own personal experience, in chronological order best I can recall...

#1, Frustration with a GM who ran what we call "follow the red line" style campaigns. Ostensibly, it was plain AD&D. No touchy-feely crap. But he had a pre-determined story line. He'd send overwhelming forces to make sure we stayed on track. And death was no escape either. More than once we had PCs struck down to -30 hp and he ruled them at 0 hp and unconscious.

#2, Vampire: the Masquerade, a lot of people who played it were so pretentious you just wanted them to be wrong. About everything. If they insisted their game was better because story-telling. So not only do they need to be wrong, that AD&D does story-telling quite admirably (my friend with his stupid red line is proof) but story telling is dumb anyway.

#3, Idiots on Usenet. Bunch of liars, one and all. They'd justify their opinions at every turn by saying stupid shit like "Oh, that requires too much record keeping" or "That's too complex." As if failure to comprehend basic math is supposed to make me want to defer to this person's opinion. Story would be another bullshit reason to blast anything that might be remotely fun. "Oh, doing it this other way is better for story." Which never seems to address there are many kinds of stories.

#4, "Modern Game Design" More like modernist game design. We shall have "fluff" over here and "crunch" over there, two completely separate things, that way you just pick how much you want of each. Gee, that sounds swell. Why don't we try eating the way we game. Instead of table salt, we'll have one shaker labeled "Sodium" and the other labeled "Chlorine" that way if you're on a low sodium diet you can just say "Pass the chlorine, please." Likewise, they hold "game" as separate from "sim" and separate from "narrative" and we're told you always have to sacrifice at least one of them. Preferably two.

#5, The Holy Opinion. Really. Opinions are like assholes. I don't respect your opinion. I don't respect the opinions of others. I don't even respect my own opinion. What I care about is reality. Yes, yes. So much of RPGs do come down to a matter of taste. Congratulations. You've graduated from the Freshman class. But let's at least try to move beyond sophomoric thinking and figure out how you use that basic irrefutable fact to make the game more fun for others, whether you're a player, GM, or a game designer. Put it out there and let reality, not opinions be the judge, and then actually change your fucking opinion as you get feedback from reality. In other words, find a way to have fun while simultaneously appealing to what OTHERS enjoy, rather than say "But that's not what *I* find fun" or "But that's not the fun *I* want to have."

Maybe the biggest problem is people who love story don't seem to know what story is. Story just happens. You can just go about, everyone playing their characters, and you have a story. Yes. Story "now." Not only that, but a lot of those facets of literature that gets off professors and critics also spontaneously emerge. "Now." Not just in the re-telling. Of course, like with any other field of study, some of the theories better than others. Some will be debunked in 10, 50, or 100 years. Joseph Campbell's work I think is of a higher grade than most, and that seems to emerge almost necessarily. You don't have to try or put it conscious effort into "story." The ones that don't flow necessarily? It's highly likely those theories will one day be laughed at.

Now that doesn't mean you can't put in conscious effort. That doesn't mean some people won't enjoy it. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. That doesn't mean it's not fun. But specifically calling your activity "story-telling" or "story-gaming", as if what the rest of us are doing aren't making stories, as if villains aren't making plots that spring out of the minds of human participants, as if we aren't as a group creating a narrative is just patently false.

Finally, to revisit #4, my personal ideal for an RPG is where description/narrative have mechanical import, and the mechanics shapes the narrative. Meaning not only do I find modern RPG theory to be less than useless (I say less than because without any theory at all you'll occasionally bump into something that works), my "playstyle" as it were serves as a shining counter-example for all of it.

Why is this relevant to "narrative play"? Because I feel it's a lot like imaginary numbers. We know full well in the real world there ain't no such thing as the square root of a negative number. However that little 'i' works as a placeholder and allows the math to work out. But it does not really exist; it's an artifact of an analytical method. Similarly, I don't know that "narrative play" is a real thing; just an artifact of GNS theory. As discussed, it's not like these games actually accomplish anything other games don't; they just perform poorly set against a broader array of play styles.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495It 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?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not really starting out trying to tell a story in an RPG.  If we have fun sessions or campaigns, we'll be able to tell good stories about them, but the fun of roleplaying is in playing the role.  It's like extreme improv theater, and that's about as close as it comes to drama or storytelling.  Going into a game with a predetermined story misses the point entirely and takes all the fun out of it.

Okay, 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.

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.

You forgot Rule No. 1 of the Internet.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980545Okay, what's wrong with my reading comprehension?

In this case nothing. You answered the question that was asked. So far very little, if anything, has been added to your answer beyond, "Someone who liked storygames was mean to me so now we hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!" :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dumarest;980546You forgot Rule No. 1 of the Internet.

"The answer is porn, what's the question?"

Despite the thread title?  lol...

Sure, it's a manifestation of human nature.  Gronan had it right.  But it isn't necessarily one side or the other expressing all the hate.  There's a large contingent of the story game crowd that "hates" trad rpgs.  And when one group or the other expresses their feelings the wrong way in a public forum things can get messy...

It's not just "story vs trad," though.  It's the same as edition wars.  When I came back to gaming after a 15 year hiatus a lot of forums were talking about "latest and greatest," and any time I said I liked OD&D I got responses that would get somebody punched in a face to face conversation.  And there may be someone who, when told "Those rules suck and you're an idiot for playing them," responds calmly.

But that person would be not me.

I don't know who started it, but it's not just "story vs trad".

Oh absolutely it's not just story vs trad.  Hell it's literally EVERYWHERE!  Gran Turismo vs Forza.  Playstation vs Nintendo.  Marvel vs DC.  

But that one sentence there is the full and complete explanation for the OP's question.  Because some people don't respond calmly when told "that thing you enjoy sucks and you're an idiot for enjoying it."

Quote from: trechriron;980501When the storygames movement first began, there was a prophet. He proclaimed "the old ways" as brain damaged and predatory and exclaimed the new ways as sacred. Many heard his words and followed him.

Some who loved the old ways also followed, intrigued by the passion and movement following this new prophet.

But the games did not play anything like the old games. In fact, they were unto themselves a new type of game. But the prophet hated the creators of the old games and wanted them to be cleansed from the Earth. The new games would be described as better versions of the old games. They would replace the old games and make the world of games better for it.

Some of the people who appreciated the old games, and were tricked by the demagoguery of the new games, grew angry at the new games prophets for trying to destroy the old games' ways.

And so the Story Games Wars began!

Amongst the traditional gamers arose a counter-prophet. His truth rang hard and direct. He fought in front, with courage, taking the slings and arrows of his enemies in stride, never relenting.

The war was long fought, with many casualties on both sides - the memes plumed thick across the InterTubes, the rhetoric spewed vitriolic fire that sapped the enthusiasm from the most dedicated of adherents. The Prophets and their adherents waged holy war across every corner of the web, no forum was untouched, no user-group unturned! The battle raged so fierce that many worried ALL games would be consumed by it's rage!!

But alas, as all wars go... a ceasefire settled across the empty battlefields. There was nothing left to give.

ALL gamers gained clarity on the truth. There is not one true way. Story Games are of their own kind and traditional RPGs remain of their own kind. You can play either or both, and enjoy either or both. Equally. If one discusses their passion with enthusiasm without trying to erase or ruin the other, then that sincerity reigns true, and peace can be known across the gamer-verse.

And so it was written. The Story Games Wars came to a close. Each side claiming victory and yet no side gaining triumph.

And we were all wiser for it.

Thats good stuff but in my experience the two sides developed more or less along side one another over the years rather than one growing out of the other. Most of the gamers I know have run their games very similarly, granted with some tweaking, for years - some not realizing until recently that there was a Whole Other Way to do it.

Yes, humans being incredibly competitive and critical of anything they dont like personally is probably the root of the whole thing of course - but I was kind of hoping to read some of what appeared here...that is personal explanations of why one approach or another is so distasteful that it inspires wrath. Somebody posted something about feeling "cheated" if they believe they are playing one way and find out they were actually playing another. Thats  completely understandable, as is the comment that some supporters of one or the other approach claim superiority - intellectually or due to experience or whatever. I get that too, nobody wants their favorite shiny thing compared to shit in the light of another even better shinier thing.

I will add that some of what has crept even into this thread is what I believe to be a general misunderstanding between the two camps. Many times what is described in someone's post as a reason for them liking/disliking one approach to gaming simply isnt present in many games of the supposed designated type. Off the cuff accusations such as not allowing a character to die or not having any notes whatsoever to follow while GMing may well have their place in someone's game but certainly not all, maybe not many. And yet these kinds of assumptions form our thinking.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980557I don't know who started it, but it's not just "story vs trad".

Good point. I forgot all the folks who are operating under some version of "Baggins likes something I don't like or Baggins dislikes something I do like so now we hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!"

Quote from: rgrove0172;980569Yes, humans being incredibly competitive and critical of anything they dont like personally is probably the root of the whole thing of course - but I was kind of hoping to read some of what appeared here...that is personal explanations of why one approach or another is so distasteful that it inspires wrath. Somebody posted something about feeling "cheated" if they believe they are playing one way and find out they were actually playing another. Thats  completely understandable, as is the comment that some supporters of one or the other approach claim superiority - intellectually or due to experience or whatever. I get that too, nobody wants their favorite shiny thing compared to shit in the light of another even better shinier thing.

I will add that some of what has crept even into this thread is what I believe to be a general misunderstanding between the two camps. Many times what is described in someone's post as a reason for them liking/disliking one approach to gaming simply isnt present in many games of the supposed designated type. Off the cuff accusations such as not allowing a character to die or not having any notes whatsoever to follow while GMing may well have their place in someone's game but certainly not all, maybe not many. And yet these kinds of assumptions form our thinking.

As to paragraph 2, that too is an extension of human nature; people go off half-cocked with incomplete information.

As to why I personally don't like it, my experiences have been a) it's predictable when I like surprises.  This is why I also don't like the whole "player tell me what the inn is like" sort of thing.  2) you can't deviate; if something more interesting to you comes up, too bad.

Mileage et cetera.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980572As to paragraph 2, that too is an extension of human nature; people go off half-cocked with incomplete information.

This is part of point #5 in my post. What happens when people elevate opinion over reality. An opinionated person wants to spew opinion at any opportunity. Someone who prioritizes reality over opinion wants to actually make sure they know the reality of what they're responding to before deciding what to do or say.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980572As to paragraph 2, that too is an extension of human nature; people go off half-cocked with incomplete information.

As to why I personally don't like it, my experiences have been a) it's predictable when I like surprises.  This is why I also don't like the whole "player tell me what the inn is like" sort of thing.  2) you can't deviate; if something more interesting to you comes up, too bad.

Mileage et cetera.

So, my General, you played in my Barsoom game at Free RPG Day - was it 'trad' or 'story'? Inquiring minds want to know, especially after all the grief I've gotten for the way I game; I'd like to know what it is that I do that seems to cause them to break out into a rash...

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495Where do you think the apparent hatred for story gaming by the pure sandbox guys comes from and for that matter, visa versa?

As a veteran of the GNS wars, I have given the matter some thought. I think there are a bunch of causes, all interacting.

Here are 2 main ones

1) A lot of people want a game that would make a good story
I think one of the most foundational causes of the conflict is a relatively common desire for a game that would make a decent story if you wrote it up after-the-fact butting up against some common advice that does not work for people who want to play mainly immersively, In Character (IC).

2) Asinine online dialog around role-playing v. roll-playing
Even by online standards the dialog around different preferences was pretty abysmal--particularly when certain parties wouldn't publicly admit that they were slamming perfectly functional styles of play they didn't care for. This was especially bad for GNS, and the Great Brain Damage spurt of honesty really helped clear the air, but it's been lousy across all kinds of dimensions.

I think the second reason speaks for itself, but I'll unpack reason 1 briefly (I can do more if anyone cares):

People want a game that would make for a good story!?
I think the most popular mode for playing rpgs is immersive-in-character. It's why role-playing is called role-playing. You're playing "your guy." But even with that stance, it's very common for people who care about how the game goes and would prefer a game that has elements that would make a good story if you wrote up the game after the fact. These are things like
* Good characterization and character-driven action
* A relative lack of "dead air" where nothing's happening
* Rising action toward a climax (versus random action and random anti-climax)
* Strong themes woven through the game
* Etc.

The popularity of games like Vampire which promised a game with literary elements and structure, is one point of reference. Another would be GDS-Dramatism in which the GM prioritizes actions that would "make a good story" -- there are others.

So great. People want a game with a recognizeable literary structure.

The problem: The #1 way to try to achieve this is to have the GM railroad the shit out of the game to enforce a literary structure. This does not work for a lot of players, and creates all kinds of problems. Even the subtle version where you pretend you're not railroading but do, anyway (sometimes called "Illusionism") is problematic since it's usually not sustainable over a long term.

For people who want IC, immersive play, feeling constrained by invisible, narrative forces sucks and ruins the game.

Solution #2 was to design games that make the players co-authors in the story and maybe use some mechanics to encourage a literary structure. Which is fine for people who care a whole lot about that structure but tends to ruin IC-immersive play for the majority. The story-games approach just doesn't work for a lot of people who like tabletop RPGs.

None of this would be a huge problem if not for the online nonsense -- they would just be solutions and games that don't work for most roleplayers... but the online discussion was pretty toxic for a long time, and there are still people who feel strongly one way or the other.

Cheers,
-E.

Not sure where the idea that you can't deviate from a storyline in a narrative or storygame comes from. Or that you can't die in them. Many of the more popular game systems, like PbtA games, can be quite deadly.

It is better to get a lot less abstract. What games, whether 'RPGs' or 'storygames' are we talking about?

AW is almost a completely freeform sandbox for example, as are most DW games. A true storygame like 1001 nights can take off in any and all directions (as is appropriate for the source material) but has a simple mechanic that helps bring the game to a close (which is not the same thing as a predetermined ending).

To me the weakest storygames I've encountered don't have enough mechanical support for the storytelling and come too close to 'make some stuff up' without any structure of how to do so. Archipelgo strikes me as one example. Dread has a great central mechanic but the actual instructions are too vague for my tastes. On the other hand Final Girl has a terrific card based mechanic that works really well.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980564Thats good stuff but in my experience the two sides developed more or less along side one another over the years rather than one growing out of the other. Most of the gamers I know have run their games very similarly, granted with some tweaking, for years - some not realizing until recently that there was a Whole Other Way to do it.

I certainly fall into this category.
I DM'd the same way for decades, and it wasn't until I started actively participating on this forum that I found out that  these "camps" existed.

What the hell???? Don't you know there is a war on??!! It is our duty to shut up, hate the bastards, and kill as many as we can so we can eat their rich,tasty courage!!!! Now get out there and hate, soldier!

Added - Damn it! I posted this in all caps, and the forum 'fixed it' for me!

As someone who loves a good story, but also loves the immersion and role-playing character aspects of RPG's, I sort of am in the middle in a lot of ways. But I think the reason why narrativism and "Story Games" get so much hate on here is because of the sheer pretentiousness of the fandoms associated with them.

Even traditional RPG's that have a narrative slant like World of Darkness are especially infamous for this, and the "Story Game" movement that came out of the Forge was even ten times worse in that regard.

Not saying there isn't pretentiousness or elitism coming from the OSR (because there is) but it's nowhere near as prevalent or hard-coded into the fandom like with Story Games or White Wolf/Onyx Path RPG's, where condescending pretentiousness seems to be mandatory.

I've never been told I was playing OD&D "the wrong way" because I invoked Rule Zero in my games, whereas if I had a dollar for every time some pretentious Goth or Punk told me I was playing World of Darkness "the wrong way" for invoking Rule Zero, or leaving out elements I didn't like such as personal horror, post-modernism, or metaplot, I'd be a wealthy man.

Somehow it's always about the Goths and the punks.  :D

I'm puzzled by the notion having story/narrative elements and qualities too your game eliminates immersion and role playing as if they can only happen in so called 'sandbox' games. It seems so absolute.

I 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.

From my experience I'd have to disagree with Sammy's claim that it is the storygamers who are the more pretentious and aggressive.

Pretty sure Badwrongfun is a phrase that comes more from D&D purists shitting on all and sundry over minor rules variations between editions that it does from 'storygamers.'

I can tell you that from my interactions with both 'camps' on G+ the One True Wayism and general rampant assholism is far more prevalent in the OSR than in my interactions with 'storygamers.' Politics can certainly turn things ugly quickly but that is as true in the OSR.

There are those who sneer at D&D and trad gamers but few with the vitriol that is common in OSR groups against their fellow D&D players and less commonly 'storygamers.'

Anna Krieder, Ettin, Robert Bohl and David Hill are all pretty unbearable but don't generally pull their petty bullshit on G+ as much. But Oakes Spaulding, that Greyhawk blowhard and their fellow cretins are just as bad, just coming from the other end of the spectrum. But they all tend to use their blogs, TBP and other social media for that shit.

In truth a more accurate name, no not Swine (harhar) for the kind of games under discussion is needed. A few of the games are truly Storygames but many are just rules light games with more prominent player input mechanics, or collaborative world building games, etc. Indy games doesn't capture it as well since there are still lots of independent designers working with trad games like D&D, CoC, etc.

More and more there are those from all camps (OSR, 5e, storygames, rules light) interacting. The TPK blog's year end 'awards' is a good example.

Cognitive dissonance is upsetting to a lot of people, and I can understand why people would be especially bent-out-of-shape regarding "Storytelling Games" because for me the activity of group storytelling stretches the definition of "game" to absurd deformity. The conversation revolves around ways of "gaming", but I'm not sure we even agree on what a "game" is in the first place. That sort of gap in basic underlying assumptions tends to frustrate the participants of a dialog.

On the other side, I have not yet figured out why anyone spews hate upon wargames as such yet, other than perhaps as an extension of the "everyone wins" mentality, which I also don't understand at all in the context of what I consider a "game".

sorry, I don't spend much time at all on G+

I haven't experienced much one true wayism at all from the OSR crowd really.  I hear about it a lot from folks like you (Voros).  I haven't really seen much of it or encountered it in any very stringent way on any of the major forums..even K&KA.  Ftmp, they are a lot of pretty decent types who have a "do what you want" attitude in my experience.  But even from the story game people I haven't really seen it.  It's more a presumption amongst them that I should simply be able to get on with their games and love them because "the narrative elements don't interfere with immersion."  Ummm...yes they do.  LOL, you don't get to decide for me what breaks my sense of immersion.

Really no One Way Truism on K&KA?

A quick search over there and I found this recent thread where all 5e and O/D, B/X and BECMI players (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=2&t=14674&start=30)are thrown under the bus, leaving 'pretty much just us.' If that isn't textbook One Way Truism what is?

I'm willing to bet that the Badwrongfun story game thing is mostly an internet only phenomenon. I'm pretty sure if I used the term story game with my players, I'd get some baffled looks. It's creating drama for the sake of creating drama in a day and age where every little thing has to be twisted into an Us versus Them mentality because for some reason some people need to tell other people how to have fun in order to validate their existence.

Quote from: Zalman;980589Cognitive dissonance is upsetting to a lot of people, and I can understand why people would be especially bent-out-of-shape regarding "Storytelling Games" because for me the activity of group storytelling stretches the definition of "game" to absurd deformity. The conversation revolves around ways of "gaming", but I'm not sure we even agree on what a "game" is in the first place. That sort of gap in basic underlying assumptions tends to frustrate the participants of a dialog.

Again everyone here is speaking in vagaries. What games do you mean? Fiasco or Urban Shadows? Monsterhearts or Kingdom?

Many of the games called storygames these days (pretty much all PbtA hacks) are not about collective storytelling anymore than any other RPG.

Quote from: Voros;980595Again everyone here is speaking in vagaries. What games do you mean? Fiasco or Urban Shadows? Monsterhearts or Kingdom?

Many of the games called storygames these days (pretty much all PbtA hacks) are not about collective storytelling anymore than any other RPG.

That's why my response was "if you mean..." (post #2). I just got back to this thread and I still see no definition of what the OP means. Probably a large part of the problem is answering such a vague question.

I also think to claim that storygames are somehow stretching the term game to absurd deformity less than convincing. When kids get together and play house or cops and robbers or pretend to be superheroes it would be distorting the term to somehow claim they aren't playing a game. We all understand that those are games. Hence the eternal cry of childhood 'Let's Play a Game!' It would be absurd to try and exclude that most fundamental form of play from the definition of game.

Quote from: Voros;980593Really no One Way Truism on K&KA?

A quick search over there and I found this recent thread where all 5e and O/D, B/X and BECMI players (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=2&t=14674&start=30)are thrown under the bus, leaving 'pretty much just us.' If that isn't textbook One Way Truism what is?

I see a thread with about 6 people talking a lot about Gygax and Arneson in a largely historical sense.  There looks to be one guy who is pretty adamantly anti OSR.  Big whoop.  Sounds a lot like the Stan Lee vs Kirby stuff that goes on at comic forums.  It's mostly easy to ignore.

There 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.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980600...There looks to be one guy who is pretty adamantly anti OSR.  Big whoop.  Sounds a lot like the Stan Lee vs Kirby stuff that goes on at comic forums.  It's mostly easy to ignore.

Yeah 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.'

Quote from: Voros;980595Again everyone here is speaking in vagaries. What games do you mean? Fiasco or Urban Shadows? Monsterhearts or Kingdom?

Many of the games called storygames these days (pretty much all PbtA hacks) are not about collective storytelling anymore than any other RPG.

My 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.

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. :D 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. :D 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.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;980576So, my General, you played in my Barsoom game at Free RPG Day - was it 'trad' or 'story'? Inquiring minds want to know, especially after all the grief I've gotten for the way I game; I'd like to know what it is that I do that seems to cause them to break out into a rash...

Totally off topic, but I would have loved to have been able to participate in this!

Quote from: finarvyn;980655Totally off topic, but I would have loved to have been able to participate in this!

Man you go off topic that sounds far more interesting than the game theory wank off.

*I too would have loved to be in on this game ak Ohum Oktay Weez.

Quote from: Voros;980599I also think to claim that storygames are somehow stretching the term game to absurd deformity less than convincing. When kids get together and play house or cops and robbers or pretend to be superheroes it would be distorting the term to somehow claim they aren't playing a game. We all understand that those are games. Hence the eternal cry of childhood 'Let's Play a Game!' It would be absurd to try and exclude that most fundamental form of play from the definition of game.

When I was a kid, we said "let's play Cops & Robbers", but we never, ever, called it a "game". Just because people are "playing" doesn't mean what they are doing is "game". That's the exact stretch that makes the conversation especially irritating to folks on both sides, and the fact that you felt differently about what a "game" is, is exactly my point.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;980576So, my General, you played in my Barsoom game at Free RPG Day - was it 'trad' or 'story'? Inquiring minds want to know, especially after all the grief I've gotten for the way I game; I'd like to know what it is that I do that seems to cause them to break out into a rash...

"Free Kriegsspiel" is what causes the skin disorders; you don't have a huge set of weighty tomes that you thumb through continuously.

Your games are straight traditional; the player has absolute agency over their character and the referee has absolute agency over everything else.  There is no thought to "what would create a good narrative or story," it is entirely "This is the situation; based on the PC actions, what is the logical outcome."  Outside of declaration of their own actions, players do not have the right of fiat; a player cannot say "The captain of the flyer is my father" and have it be taken as absolute truth, though suggestions are always possible.

This list is not exhaustive, but it points to a few of the things commonly associated with what are often called story games.  Nor is it intended to be taxonomic.

It worked so well because many of us knew each other, we were all there to have fun and relax, and several of us knew the environment up, down, left, right, and sideways.

Quote from: Zalman;980658When I was a kid, we said "let's play Cops & Robbers", but we never, ever, called it a "game". Just because people are "playing" doesn't mean what they are doing is "game". That's the exact stretch that makes the conversation especially irritating to folks on both sides, and the fact that you felt differently about what a "game" is, is exactly my point.

Interestingly, Rob Kuntz made the same point when I was chatting with him at GaryCon a few years back; "They're playing, but it's not a game."

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. 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.

Quote from: Zalman;980658When I was a kid, we said "let's play Cops & Robbers", but we never, ever, called it a "game". Just because people are "playing" doesn't mean what they are doing is "game". That's the exact stretch that makes the conversation especially irritating to folks on both sides, and the fact that you felt differently about what a "game" is, is exactly my point.

Aaaaaaaaaaand I'm . .  . left without anything to add to these cogent posts.

Well, fuck me.

Quote from: Zalman;980658When I was a kid, we said "let's play Cops & Robbers", but we never, ever, called it a "game". Just because people are "playing" doesn't mean what they are doing is "game". That's the exact stretch that makes the conversation especially irritating to folks on both sides, and the fact that you felt differently about what a "game" is, is exactly my point.

So kids playing pretend aren't playing a game? I'd disagree. I think you're defining what a game is now and projecting it back.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980679"Free Kriegsspiel" is what causes the skin disorders; you don't have a huge set of weighty tomes that you thumb through continuously.

Your games are straight traditional; the player has absolute agency over their character and the referee has absolute agency over everything else.  There is no thought to "what would create a good narrative or story," it is entirely "This is the situation; based on the PC actions, what is the logical outcome."  Outside of declaration of their own actions, players do not have the right of fiat; a player cannot say "The captain of the flyer is my father" and have it be taken as absolute truth, though suggestions are always possible.

This list is not exhaustive, but it points to a few of the things commonly associated with what are often called story games.  Nor is it intended to be taxonomic.

It worked so well because many of us knew each other, we were all there to have fun and relax, and several of us knew the environment up, down, left, right, and sideways.

I believe you've played DW, do you consider that a 'storygame'?

What storygames in particular have you played?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980679"Free Kriegsspiel" is what causes the skin disorders; you don't have a huge set of weighty tomes that you thumb through continuously.

Your games are straight traditional; the player has absolute agency over their character and the referee has absolute agency over everything else.  There is no thought to "what would create a good narrative or story," it is entirely "This is the situation; based on the PC actions, what is the logical outcome."  Outside of declaration of their own actions, players do not have the right of fiat; a player cannot say "The captain of the flyer is my father" and have it be taken as absolute truth, though suggestions are always possible.

This list is not exhaustive, but it points to a few of the things commonly associated with what are often called story games.  Nor is it intended to be taxonomic.

It worked so well because many of us knew each other, we were all there to have fun and relax, and several of us knew the environment up, down, left, right, and sideways.

Um, okay; I think I get it. I'm just not familiar with what's being called 'game theory' here; I'm used to what it used to be the term for, back in the day.

Fascinating discussion. I seem to know less and less every day. I think I'm not even sure what 'trad' and 'story games' mean. 'Course, my gaming experience is so very limited, it should not be a surprise to me that this is the case.

Quote from: finarvyn;980655Totally off topic, but I would have loved to have been able to participate in this!

I thought that it was quite fun. Lots of heroics and derring-do, lots of swashbuckling and Technicolor adventure. I had a good time running it.

For me, the exemplary 'Story Game' is something like Fiasco or Once Upon a Time, where the actual gameplay targets the development of a story as the game's primary aim. There may be aspects that allow roleplaying along the way, but in actual fact, it is possibly to play these games without roleplaying much.

A roleplaying game, on the other hand has it's primary aim of playing the role of somebody in a fictionalised or virtual setting. It too can generate a story as a by product, but the degree in which this is important (which can vary from one game to another) is still secondary to the primary aim of simply interacting with the setting via a role you play.  

The notion of power structures within each game set up - as in collaborative design of a setting or shared responsibility for refereeing during the course of a game - are common features to both, but not definitive of one category or another.

So, Fiasco is a story-game which allows players opportunities to roleplay, and FATE is a roleplaying game with storytelling ambitions. That's the difference.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980646I 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.

I like traditional -- but then I have positive connotations with the word (something "traditional" is often something that works. It's also something that hip young people rail against until they realize that it's a tradition because it works. Both of those are good things in my mind).

GNS committed innumerable crimes against the term Simulationism, so that it's almost useless. Which is a shame.

GDS-Simulationist made a lot of sense and is a very viable concept for diagnosing GMing decisions (you rule based on what you think would happen, even if that makes for a less interesting story or leads to an anticlimactic or overwhelming challenge).

GNS-Simulationism started as some kind of exploration of story and then devolved into something undefined because they couldn't pack all the negative things they had in mind into the "exploration" definition.

I thing GDS deserves more glory than it ever got, but I'd avoid using those terms as written since GNS really did a number on them.

Cheers,
-E.

Role-playing game vs. Storygame isn't a War at all.  There are not all that many Storygames, really.

You did and still do see resentment and internet drama over roleplaying games with increasing amounts of "narrativium", ie. OOC metagame mechanics there for various reasons having to with narrative control and author stance, especially when the mechanics are not optional and/or difficult to remove and especially when the game is using a long-standing IP that historically did not have those mechanics.

However, in broader gaming discussion, like the chans, reddit, even purple,  the idea that certain games are "pretty narrative", might be "too storygamey for me", or "kinda forgey" is just accepted and people move on.  

It's really only on this site here that we always get "theRPGsite narrative dance" where people will claim games have no OOC elements, aren't created to provide any narrative elements, engage in some flavor of distinction denial, crying foul at some form of "narrative persecution" when someone attempts to state an opinion, etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980710It's really only on this site here that we always get "theRPGsite narrative dance" where people will claim games have no OOC elements, aren't created to provide any narrative elements, engage in some flavor of distinction denial, crying foul at some form of "narrative persecution" when someone attempts to state an opinion, etc.

   Well, that isn't helped by the Pundit still waging war against the Forge and 'the Swine', especially since it's impossible to put him on Ignore. :)

  (Personally, I'm at the point where I'm happy to leave "roleplaying games" to the immersion purists and go with 'Dramatic Adventure Game' for the more mixed ones. But I'm also ready to say that the OSR can have D&D if I'm allowed to keep 4E, the 2E fluff and settings, and a few odds and ends from BECMI. :D )

It does work the other way too, with little attitude issues that you pick up here and there.

When Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying 4th edition was announced, for example, it didn't take long for gamers to rush online to start arguing that the game needed to remove 'simulationist' aspects from the game system (whatever that meant). In conversation with a fan of Monster Hearts, she tried to explain that this was a "deeper" game than Vampire: The Masquerade because it was a 'narrativist' game (she couldn't actually explain how specifically it made for a deeper experience, nor how it was more definitively 'narrativist' in design).  

The terms have filtered into common use in the hobby, but often as not they are meaningless and really just a crutch for gamers trying to proselytise their own preferences.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;980711(Personally, I'm at the point where I'm happy to leave "roleplaying games" to the immersion purists and go with 'Dramatic Adventure Game' for the more mixed ones. But I'm also ready to say that the OSR can have D&D if I'm allowed to keep the 2E fluff and settings, 4E, and a few odds and ends from BECMI. :D )

I think things would be a little more honest if 2d20, some flavors of xworld, Fate, etc were say marketed as Narrative Roleplaying Games, Storytelling Roleplaying Games, Roleplaying Adventure Games, or anything that would tell me just by glancing at the cover that when I played this "Roleplaying Game", by design, I would be forced to sometimes not Roleplay when I engaged with its mechanics. ;) (I'm saying this as someone who owns a 2d20 game and does play it occasionally.)

The OSR kerfluffles, I couldn't give two shits about.  They started lying the very first day they claimed their "D&D Revival" was an "Old School Renaissance" and they've lied every day since that they've used the term. :D  (Yes, I'm being sarcastic and poking fun, taking the piss, etc.)

The B/X vs. AD&D, the new artguys vs. whoever is supposed to be against the new artguys, as long as the people actually making quality stuff, keep making quality stuff, let the intarwebz be the intarwebz.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;980701Um, okay; I think I get it. I'm just not familiar with what's being called 'game theory' here; I'm used to what it used to be the term for, back in the day.

Fascinating discussion. I seem to know less and less every day. I think I'm not even sure what 'trad' and 'story games' mean. 'Course, my gaming experience is so very limited, it should not be a surprise to me that this is the case.

"Theory of games" is about (according to some) how games should be designed to enhance a certain play experience, as opposed to "Game Theory" which is the root of OR that you and I know and love.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980718"Theory of games" is about (according to some) how games should be designed to enhance a certain play experience, as opposed to "Game Theory" which is the root of OR that you and I know and love.

And "story games" sort of cropped up somewhere from people who wanted games that built a story that was like a written story, and "traditional" RPGs kind of got that label because it's shorter than "not story games."

As you point out, the nomenclature is extremely sloppy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980718"Theory of games" is about (according to some) how games should be designed to enhance a certain play experience, as opposed to "Game Theory" which is the root of OR that you and I know and love.

Ah. I think I'll stay in my niche, then, doing what I do. 'Braunsteins', if that's still the term of art being used.

It's hard to figure out what to call stuff. For example, Heroquest 2e. It's kind of a story game, since character's traits are brief tags, difficulties changed based on your successes/failures, but it's really Traditional (GM is in charge of everything but your character). Fate Core, actually, is less storygamy RAW than it is in Internet discussion.

I'd actually say there's more hate for "Railroading." Both here and on RPGNet, "Railroading" seems to be the worst thing you could ever do, and any problem you have is because you're Railroading (I'm not kidding, I've posted stuff that had nothing to do with Railroading, and had people say that I needed to stop doing it). This hate is particularly odd to me because, in real life (not the Internet), I'd hazard a guess that most RPGing going on is more like a mostly-planned story with influenced-by-player-decisions-and-chance. For every 1 game of Apocalypse World I see at the game store, there are a gagillion D&D / DCC / Pathfinder / Savage Worlds games playing through adventure paths. I'm sure it is bad when the GM is extreme enough to make you window dressing in his story, but I've had a massive amount of fun playing in these kind of situations. There are entire game systems (Gumeshoe, Call of Cthulhu, The One Ring) that are kind of structured more like a mostly-planned-story. I guess the extreme version of this would be like some of the White Wolf oWoD games, where your characters could not do anything while important things happened in the world. I think this is an exception though, to most of this kind of play.

Adventure paths are played so much because people are busy, noncreative, or just plain stupid, or any combination of the above.

However, they still suck ass.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980725Adventure paths are played so much because people are busy, noncreative, or just plain stupid, or any combination of the above.

However, they still suck ass.

For what you have said to be other than a useless over-generalization you'd need a decent definition of what an adventure path is and how it is different than a mission-based adventure.

Wow, I'm stupid and uncreative. Awesome! Certainly proves my point about the crazy hate for Railroading when som guy gets super insulting with me over this.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;980724It's hard to figure out what to call stuff. For example, Heroquest 2e. It's kind of a story game, since character's traits are brief tags, difficulties changed based on your successes/failures, but it's really Traditional (GM is in charge of everything but your character). Fate Core, actually, is less storygamy RAW than it is in Internet discussion.

I'd actually say there's more hate for "Railroading." Both here and on RPGNet, "Railroading" seems to be the worst thing you could ever do, and any problem you have is because you're Railroading (I'm not kidding, I've posted stuff that had nothing to do with Railroading, and had people say that I needed to stop doing it). This hate is particularly odd to me because, in real life (not the Internet), I'd hazard a guess that most RPGing going on is more like a mostly-planned story with influenced-by-player-decisions-and-chance. For every 1 game of Apocalypse World I see at the game store, there are a gagillion D&D / DCC / Pathfinder / Savage Worlds games playing through adventure paths. I'm sure it is bad when the GM is extreme enough to make you window dressing in his story, but I've had a massive amount of fun playing in these kind of situations. There are entire game systems (Gumeshoe, Call of Cthulhu, The One Ring) that are kind of structured more like a mostly-planned-story. I guess the extreme version of this would be like some of the White Wolf oWoD games, where your characters could not do anything while important things happened in the world. I think this is an exception though, to most of this kind of play.

I agree with you completely but your points, and those similar to them, have often been the spark for the angst I eluded to. When you make statements like "RPGing going on is more like a mostly-planned story" it seems to really antagonize those that disagree. Similarly their comments to the contrary tend to bring out the worst in those with opinions like yours. Often times they are both acting on assumptions that frankly arent the case and they often highlight their points with examples that are rare occurances or just plain ludicrous. The argument then flares out of control and leaves the reality of their differing opinions in its wake. (I gave an example once of a GMs description to the players while they were traveling down a country road. Somebody actually started up an argument about the accuracy of the description regarding real world topography etc. I argued right back and both of us seemed to lose the fact that we were talking about colorful descriptions, not geography!) The same thing happens in the discussions regarding GM style as well. So often both sides go off on argumentative tangents that have nothing to do with any of the participant's actual games.

Where the issue truly gets clouded I believe is when the comments made are delivered with a certain finality, declarations rather than opinions.
If you do this or you do that "IT ISNT ROLEPLAYING BY GOD! YOU MAY AS WELL GO WRITE A BOOK!" or "DONT FOOL YOURSELF, ITS A GAME! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FULL IMMERSION - AS SOON AS YOU ROLL THE DICE YOU HAVE LOST IT!"

These kinds of statements would be so much more effective if worded as a polite opinion and the absolutes were avoided. "I dont particularly like it when the GM does" such in such - is fine. "ANY GM THAT DOES THAT SUCKS!" only antagonizes and adds little to the discussion.

Quote from: Bren;980730For what you have said to be other than a useless over-generalization you'd need a decent definition of what an adventure path is and how it is different than a mission-based adventure.

Well, at least as Pathfinder uses the term, it is a long series of adventures tied loosely together with no real choice on how things go.  "You WILL do this, and then you WILL do that."  The first one I played through, the only interesting bit was when we accidentally stumbled into an encounter considerably before we were "supposed" to.

Of course, I personally think that modules were the worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so that is the background radiation of my opinion.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980725Adventure paths are played so much because people are busy, noncreative, or just plain stupid, or any combination of the above.

However, they still suck ass.

You made my point Gronan. There really doesnt seem to be a need for your generalization of gamer attributes or a personal declaration of what Adventure paths do. By your choice of words it appears that you have a real personal grudge against them and anyone who uses them, which is probably not the case (hopefully) but is bound to trigger negative feedback.

What is wrong with "Adventure paths are probably really useful for GMs without the time to make up their own adventures but personally I find them too constraining and linear for my tastes as GM or Player"?

Quote from: rgrove0172;980737You made my point Gronan. There really doesnt seem to be a need for your generalization of gamer attributes or a personal declaration of what Adventure paths do. By your choice of words it appears that you have a real personal grudge against them and anyone who uses them, which is probably not the case (hopefully) but is bound to trigger negative feedback.

As I said above, I think modules were the worst thing to ever happen to D&D.

Few people share this opinion, I realize, but I still hold to it.

And yeah, I did shit on this thread.  Sorry.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980738As I said above, I think modules were the worst thing to ever happen to D&D.

Few people share this opinion, I realize, but I still hold to it.

And yeah, I did shit on this thread.  Sorry.

Cool, could be you just added a great deal (more than shit too!)  You reacted emotionally to a 'pet peeve' and commented instinctively. Thats probably what a lot of members do - they respond instantly and in the heat of the moment may not represent themselves in the same way than had they considered the thread a little longer. I know Ive done it many times, flown off the handle and made some sleezy, snide remark intended not to add anything constructive to the conversation but goad somebody who just pissed in my cornflakes!  

I think this is what I was getting at with this post. Im sort of betting that the famed War everyone is talking about isnt nearly as epic as we would guess by reading through hastily structured, emotional posts.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980705For me, the exemplary 'Story Game' is something like Fiasco or Once Upon a Time, where the actual gameplay targets the development of a story as the game's primary aim. There may be aspects that allow roleplaying along the way, but in actual fact, it is possibly to play these games without roleplaying much.

A roleplaying game, on the other hand has it's primary aim of playing the role of somebody in a fictionalised or virtual setting. It too can generate a story as a by product, but the degree in which this is important (which can vary from one game to another) is still secondary to the primary aim of simply interacting with the setting via a role you play.  

The notion of power structures within each game set up - as in collaborative design of a setting or shared responsibility for refereeing during the course of a game - are common features to both, but not definitive of one category or another.

So, Fiasco is a story-game which allows players opportunities to roleplay, and FATE is a roleplaying game with storytelling ambitions. That's the difference.

I agree completely and think that you actually use a game as an example helps tremendously in clarifying what we're talking about. Some definition of terms and real examples would make all the difference in these discussions and help slow their slide into rhetoric and generalization.

I will happily admit that I am both uncreative and busy. Hence my love for modules...I feel that full adventure paths that take you from level 1 to 15 are a little overbearing, though.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980739Cool, could be you just added a great deal (more than shit too!)  You reacted emotionally to a 'pet peeve' and commented instinctively. Thats probably what a lot of members do - they respond instantly and in the heat of the moment may not represent themselves in the same way than had they considered the thread a little longer. I know Ive done it many times, flown off the handle and made some sleezy, snide remark intended not to add anything constructive to the conversation but goad somebody who just pissed in my cornflakes!  

I think this is what I was getting at with this post. Im sort of betting that the famed War everyone is talking about isnt nearly as epic as we would guess by reading through hastily structured, emotional posts.

Thanks.

Well, first, we're back to my first post in this thread... "People overreact to shit.  It's what we do as a species."

Secondly, EVERYBODY, as you point out, has a pet peeve.  Something that just gripes their wagger, as Dogbert says.  So there's that.

Thirdly, as C.S. Lewis says, it matters "greatly whether he is fresh or tired, well or ill."  Somebody has a shitty day at work, don't be surprised when it shows up on their keyboard.

Fourthly, what else is going on in somebody's life?  Tonight six hours away, some of my oldest and dearest friends are continuing a campaign I started in as a player back in 1977.

Meanwhile, I'm stuck in a fucking shitass jerkwater half-baked turd bucket of a town in the middle of the Godforsaken prairie.  I have to drive more than an hour to get to anything other than cornfields and soybeans.  If I never see another cowboy hat, or never hear country/western "music" again, it will be an infinity of millennia too soon.  I'm living in a fucking house trailer because the fucking parish is too fucking cheap to pay for anything fucking better.

We are here because my wife is an Episcopal priest and this is her parish.  She's been looking for three years for a new one, but is still looking.  We both hate it here.  But in the Episcopal church, at least, if a priest leaves a parish before they have another, they will never work again.  Effectively, if not technically, she would be abandoning her orders.

I''m 62 years old.  If I'm lucky I've got 30 good years left.  I don't want to spend any more of it rotting away in this fucking shitheap of a town.  I'm thoroughly miserable, and there is no direct action I can personally take to change it.  I don't want to divorce my wife, I don't want her to abandon her orders, and I can't find a job for her.

I wasn't always a grumpy old fucker.  But yeah, it affects the tenor of my posts.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980735Well, at least as Pathfinder uses the term, it is a long series of adventures tied loosely together with no real choice on how things go.  "You WILL do this, and then you WILL do that."  The first one I played through, the only interesting bit was when we accidentally stumbled into an encounter considerably before we were "supposed" to.

Of course, I personally think that modules were the worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so that is the background radiation of my opinion.

Wow, I think we agree on something.  :o

I do think a good DM can make a pre-written adventure work but I also think the first step is to see it as a collection of maps, npcs, and events and be flexible.  Too often you get the "you guys screwed up the adventure" it's at least a little more forgivable than "you guys screwed up my story."

One thing I've come to accept is that people have different talents and some people are just more creative than others.  I think it's partly a matter of developing it through practice but people are also terrified of criticism which is a necessary part of growth.  You don't become good at anything creative by being uncritical.  But many people have had the creativity beaten right out of them though, if you ever start a sentence "not to be mean but," just stop and walk away, no constructive criticism ever started with that line.

I'm sorry to hear about where you live.  I'm in Lethbridge Alberta, a small rural city but I've spent a few years in small towns and I'm with you on "country music."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980735Well, at least as Pathfinder uses the term, it is a long series of adventures tied loosely together with no real choice on how things go.  "You WILL do this, and then you WILL do that."  The first one I played through, the only interesting bit was when we accidentally stumbled into an encounter considerably before we were "supposed" to.

Of course, I personally think that modules were the worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so that is the background radiation of my opinion.

Never ran a D&D module. They didn't exist when I ran D&D nor with very rare exceptions, when I've played it. On the other hand, when I've run Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek, and Star Wars those games are almost exclusively what I would call mission based for what I hope are fairly obvious reasons. And there often is a path, of sorts, to CoC, Trek, and Star Wars adventures. So when you say "adventure path" it really isn't clear to me what you are referring to or that you are essentially talking about Pathfinder and Pathfinder like adventures. Never having ever read or played a Pathfinder adventure I've no clue what they are like, though your description doesn't make them sound like my cup of tea.

Railroad vs. Sandbox has never had anything to with Story/Narrative vs. Non-Story/Narrative.  Narrative people, Forge people, storygamers, etc, they hate railroads as much as, if not more than anybody.

I love 'hard' country music, the pop crap they play on the radio is no more representative of the genre past or present than Whitesnake is for rock or Lil' Jon for hip-hop.

But to try and keep slightly OT, I've never encountered a GM who is a PTB module-user except when we were kids and didn't know what the hell we were doing.

And Gronan, have you thought of joining your friends' game remotely via Roll20 or Skype?

Tried.  So damn noisy I had a migraine for three days afterwards, which is another story.

I miss the days when we each ran multiple times a month so there was no such thing as one "group."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980747I will happily admit that I am both uncreative and busy. Hence my love for modules...I feel that full adventure paths that take you from level 1 to 15 are a little overbearing, though.

Interesting.

For me prepping to run a published module or scenario is not really a time savings. That's one reason that I tend to use published scenarios almost exclusively for Call of Cthulhu. Where I find there is a bit more of a time savings due to the presence of player handouts, period research, and such.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980749Meanwhile, I'm stuck in a fucking shitass jerkwater half-baked turd bucket of a town in the middle of the Godforsaken prairie.  I have to drive more than an hour to get to anything other than cornfields and soybeans.  If I never see another cowboy hat, or never hear country/western "music" again, it will be an infinity of millennia too soon.  I'm living in a fucking house trailer because the fucking parish is too fucking cheap to pay for anything fucking better.

I''m 62 years old.  If I'm lucky I've got 30 good years left.  I don't want to spend any more of it rotting away in this fucking shitheap of a town.  I'm thoroughly miserable, and there is no direct action I can personally take to change it.  I don't want to divorce my wife, I don't want her to abandon her orders, and I can't find a job for her.

Yeah, that sucks. Hope things get better for you both soon.

I have heard that for a lot of the traditional religions there are a decreasing number of posts for the number of existing clergy. I suspect that Episcopalians fall into that category.

Yeah Skype is completely unpredictable, sometimes fine oftentimes crap.

Adventure Paths and Modules are shitshows. I'd rather play a boardgame. More challenge and equal roleplaying.  Hell, we played Zombicide last night and it had more roleplay than most Pathfinder Society or Living Campaign events I've been to. Worst part of the shitshows in most modern modules is they went from "balanced" (aka 50% should succeed) to "accessible" where you have to intentionally fuck up to lose. At least DCC and LotFP still make good modules, with much less choo-choo train.

As for "story games"? They are not RPGs. Never have been, never will be. They are their own thing. And that's totally fine.

I've played them and its group masturbation. Zero immersion, zero risk, all about spotlight and control of the story without having to put in the work of being the GM and taking the responsibility of being the GM. For me, they are a total shitshow.

Also, the storygame crowd I've encountered in California has been the fucking worst. I used to thank RPGA for keeping the dysfunctional gamers off my table, but the storygame crowd has a hefty SJW streak and I need to thank them for keeping that group of fucknuts off my table too. I just need 3-4 players at table and I usually get 6 when word gets out I'm running so have ZERO compunction about needing to appease.

But again, just because something is a shitshow to me doesn't mean others shouldn't free to enjoy it happily.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980749We are here because my wife is an Episcopal priest and this is her parish.  She's been looking for three years for a new one, but is still looking.  We both hate it here.

Gronan, could she start her own church? And if not a church, perhaps a religious non-profit center of some charitable sort?

I imagine it would be challenging, but at least you both would choose the location.

Life's too short to live in the cornfield.

Quote from: Voros;980758Yeah Skype is completely unpredictable, sometimes fine oftentimes crap.

The last few updates improved its reliability but there is still the problem of that remote people have trouble hearing and being heard when face to face people are not considerate. I'm involved in two Skype games a week and we manage. But it's not ideal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

The "face to face people not being considerate" was the big problem.  Half the group simply never stops talking.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980762The "face to face people not being considerate" was the big problem.  Half the group simply never stops talking.

I have pretty quiet players so that's not much of a problem. Skype isn't the greatest gaming experience and it does take some work on everyone's part. But it beats not being able to game with people I like.

Quote from: Spinachcat;980759As for "story games"? They are not RPGs. Never have been, never will be. They are their own thing. And that's totally fine.

I've played them and its group masturbation. Zero immersion, zero risk, all about spotlight and control of the story without having to put in the work of being the GM and taking the responsibility of being the GM. For me, they are a total shitshow.

...
But again, just because something is a shitshow to me doesn't mean others shouldn't free to enjoy it happily.

Rather typically your criticism boils down to the fact that a true storygame (again no specifics or names of said game given) doesn't do what an RPG does. Kinda like saying 'this wine is a shitty beer!' or 'this video game isn't a good short story!' Seems to be missing the point, plus the half-hearted live and let live statement isn't really convincing after the insults, bile and political whining.

In regards to the Skype tangent, Skype is crap for online gaming.  Try Wire (https://wire.com/) or Mumble (https://wiki.mumble.info/wiki/Main_Page).  Both are much more reliable and sound better.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980733These kinds of statements would be so much more effective if worded as a polite opinion and the absolutes were avoided.

. . . whines the passive-aggressive shit-stirring pantywaist.

Quote from: Celestial;980769In regards to the Skype tangent, Skype is crap for online gaming.  Try Wire (https://wire.com/) or Mumble (https://wiki.mumble.info/wiki/Main_Page).  Both are much more reliable and sound better.

Mumble is great, have a server going on three years now.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980710It's really only on this site here that we always get "theRPGsite narrative dance" where people will claim games have no OOC elements, aren't created to provide any narrative elements, engage in some flavor of distinction denial, crying foul at some form of "narrative persecution" when someone attempts to state an opinion, etc.

Nah, happens on BGG/RPGG too. Just usually from the opposite end. Sometimes from the extreme opposite end.

I think the more common outlook here tends to be that narrative and more importantly a story is a natural outgrowth of the gameplay.
Gronan was punched in the nuts by Celerus because he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time by the players own action, or inaction.. Rather than no matter what Gronan does, such as wisely fleeing the country to the fabled Island of Concupiscent Redheads, Celerus is going to appear and punch Gronan in the nuts. Bonus points if the soon to be doubled over Gronan can't even leave the city, or the damn street because... STORY!

Quote from: Voros;980764Rather typically your criticism boils down to the fact that a true storygame (again no specifics or names of said game given) doesn't do what an RPG does. Kinda like saying 'this wine is a shitty beer!' or 'this video game isn't a good short story!' Seems to be missing the point, plus the half-hearted live and let live statement isn't really convincing after the insults, bile and political whining.

I am not here to convince you of anything. If you don't like live and let live, Paul McCartney has a song for you.

And you haven't been subject to .0001% of my bile.

The "storygamers" were the ones screeching "our wine is the best beer!" That's what made their whole bowel movement completely retarded. They made a new style of game. That's great. Go forth and play your new type of game. The insanity was that RPGs were supposed to be supplanted by their not-RPG games. D&D wasn't 1974's best new wargame. It was a completely different thing with its own concepts and own audience.

But its the same shit as the cRPG noise. Those aren't RPGs either.

It's amazing this is even a discussion.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980738As I said above, I think modules were the worst thing to ever happen to D&D.

Think of modules as going out to a restaurant and eating rather than cooking all that stuff yourself. Maybee because you cant cook. Maybee to save time. Maybee you like that places cooking better than your own. etc. And there are places that serve you great, and there are places that... dont.

But thats probably a subject for a different thread.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980705For me, the exemplary 'Story Game' is something like Fiasco or Once Upon a Time, where the actual gameplay targets the development of a story as the game's primary aim. There may be aspects that allow roleplaying along the way, but in actual fact, it is possibly to play these games without roleplaying much.

A roleplaying game, on the other hand has it's primary aim of playing the role of somebody in a fictionalised or virtual setting. It too can generate a story as a by product, but the degree in which this is important (which can vary from one game to another) is still secondary to the primary aim of simply interacting with the setting via a role you play.  

The notion of power structures within each game set up - as in collaborative design of a setting or shared responsibility for refereeing during the course of a game - are common features to both, but not definitive of one category or another.

So, Fiasco is a story-game which allows players opportunities to roleplay, and FATE is a roleplaying game with storytelling ambitions. That's the difference.

Here's the thing.

Suppose development of a story IS my primary aim. I just think AD&D is a better way to go about achieving that aim than playing, say, Once Upon A Time. I still use the exact same rules of AD&D. I play it faithfully, so there is a lot of role-play, because that's my method for developing a story collaboratively.

Games are activities. They are means. They are not ends. They are not tied to ends. Or aims. Or purposes. Or creative agendas. A game ostensibly written with one creative agenda in mind can be played by someone with a different creative agenda, and it can actually be just as fun if the game is any good.

Quote from: Lunamancer;980779Here's the thing.

Suppose development of a story IS my primary aim. I just think AD&D is a better way to go about achieving that aim than playing, say, Once Upon A Time. I still use the exact same rules of AD&D. I play it faithfully, so there is a lot of role-play, because that's my method for developing a story collaboratively.

Games are activities. They are means. They are not ends. They are not tied to ends. Or aims. Or purposes. Or creative agendas. A game ostensibly written with one creative agenda in mind can be played by someone with a different creative agenda, and it can actually be just as fun if the game is any good.

I'm sure that you could develop a story through the use of a chess set, but it's not the game's primary aspect.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980783I'm sure that you could develop a story through the use of a chess set, but it's not the game's primary aspect.

I kid you not. Over on BGG there were people claiming this some years ago. Probably still are.

Quote from: -E.;980706I like traditional -- but then I have positive connotations with the word (something "traditional" is often something that works. It's also something that hip young people rail against until they realize that it's a tradition because it works. Both of those are good things in my mind).

GNS committed innumerable crimes against the term Simulationism, so that it's almost useless. Which is a shame.

GDS-Simulationist made a lot of sense and is a very viable concept for diagnosing GMing decisions (you rule based on what you think would happen, even if that makes for a less interesting story or leads to an anticlimactic or overwhelming challenge).

GNS-Simulationism started as some kind of exploration of story and then devolved into something undefined because they couldn't pack all the negative things they had in mind into the "exploration" definition.

I thing GDS deserves more glory than it ever got, but I'd avoid using those terms as written since GNS really did a number on them.

Cheers,
-E.

LOL, yeah. This is a very incisive critique.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980770. . . whines the passive-aggressive shit-stirring pantywaist.

Sigh*

Rgrove, you're right.

Anyway. First off, the most story-gamey RPG I ever played was Houses of the Blooded. In the context of this game at least "story gaming" is almost the opposite of railroading. The GM cannot control which direction things are going at all, and that's part of the way the system works. The benefit is that the system promotes running with minimal to no prep time for the GM, and has a lot of tips for people who might otherwise find this difficult. It worked well for us. I would have thought that the players having some GM powers would have ruined immersion, but it didn't (I suppose same way you can get immersed in a character in a book, even if you know much more than that character would)

This sort of philosophy of RPG gaming is just counter to how many people here view that RPGs should be done. Which is a complete non-issue if you ask me. D&D remains the most popular RPG, so what's the loss if you/someone might try something different? If you call it an RPG (which it is if you ask me) or not is akin to arguing if a movie fits exactly in the horror movie genre or not or if it's more of a thriller. It's a game. Have fun with it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980808Sigh*

My apologies, Grover - I put you on Ignore a long time ago, and I thought I was replying to Voros.

The reply works either way, though.

I spent years upon years reading poster upon poster who slagged chance encounters, sandbox play, random chargen, no plot immunity, playing-to-find-out, develop-in-play, &c as  puerile, 'basic,' 'rollplaying,' right up until the hipsters and poseurs 'rediscovered' D&D and made it 'acceptable' to like the shit I've liked about roleplaying games since I was twelve. Anyone who says that 'trad' gamers or the OSR started this fight is full of shit straight up to their fucking worthless eyeballs.

Quote from: Trond;980818Rgrove, you're right.

Anyway. First off, the most story-gamey RPG I ever played was Houses of the Blooded. In the context of this game at least "story gaming" is almost the opposite of railroading. The GM cannot control which direction things are going at all, and that's part of the way the system works. The benefit is that the system promotes running with minimal to no prep time for the GM, and has a lot of tips for people who might otherwise find this difficult. It worked well for us. I would have thought that the players having some GM powers would have ruined immersion, but it didn't (I suppose same way you can get immersed in a character in a book, even if you know much more than that character would)

This sort of philosophy of RPG gaming is just counter to how many people here view that RPGs should be done. Which is a complete non-issue if you ask me. D&D remains the most popular RPG, so what's the loss if you/someone might try something different? If you call it an RPG (which it is if you ask me) or not is akin to arguing if a movie fits exactly in the horror movie genre or not or if it's more of a thriller. It's a game. Have fun with it.

Fun? Don't you know this a war? Geek War!

Quote from: Lunamancer;980779Suppose development of a story IS my primary aim. I just think AD&D is a better way to go about achieving that aim than playing, say, Once Upon A Time.

Yeah, much as I like Once Upon A Time... and it is a game about creating a story... I can't say many of the stories I've seen it generate are particularly good (though elements of it might be great).
The main motivation of the players is to gain and keep control of the storyline in order to get rid of cards in their hand and that does not in any way insure a good tale is told.
A retelling of the average D&D session would probably have a more cohesive plot with discernible cause and effect.

Quote from: Nexus;980824Fun? Don't you know this a war? Geek War!

Y'know, the question was asked and us "guys who hate narrative story elements" in our rpgs are just trying to answer...it's hard to go all kumbaya and answer the question at the same time...

Quote from: Simlasa;980827Yeah, much as I like Once Upon A Time... and it is a game about creating a story... I can't say many of the stories I've seen it generate are particularly good (though elements of it might be great).
The main motivation of the players is to gain and keep control of the storyline in order to get rid of cards in their hand and that does not in any way insure a good tale is told.
A retelling of the average D&D session would probably have a more cohesive plot with discernible cause and effect.

yeah.  Probably.  And generating a story through play and then re-telling it later is exactly what I want from an rpg.  Having a story in mind ahead of time and then making sure things in the game go pretty much according to that story and hit all the major dramatic notes and so forth isn't.  It's more about having a set of dramatic narrative principles that need to be met than it is an actual plot though (in terms of what I don't like that is).  The idea that characters need to achieve a certain type of narrative arc...that their deaths need to meet a certain dramatic gravitas, that dramatic "spotlight" time needs to be equally distributed among characters, that players need to have a part in directing the narrative outside of the influence the actions of their characters would have in the reality of their world...that sort of thing.

Quote from: Simlasa;980827Yeah, much as I like Once Upon A Time... and it is a game about creating a story... I can't say many of the stories I've seen it generate are particularly good (though elements of it might be great).
The main motivation of the players is to gain and keep control of the storyline in order to get rid of cards in their hand and that does not in any way insure a good tale is told.
A retelling of the average D&D session would probably have a more cohesive plot with discernible cause and effect.

Yeah, interesting point.  The competitive nature of most Storygames' mechanics end up getting in the way of creating a good story.  The collaborative ones in which the elements are there just to give ideas are more likely to lead to better stories I think.

Just playing an RPG straight without any narrative cheat codes and then writing a story about what happened afterward would likely create a better story.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980679It worked so well because many of us knew each other, we were all there to have fun and relax, and several of us knew the environment up, down, left, right, and sideways.

Now, where's the fun in that? ;)

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980830yeah.  Probably.  And generating a story through play and then re-telling it later is exactly what I want from an rpg.

Except of course that's not what's happening unless you use narrative mechanics.  What you're generating through play is a set of events that occurred as a result of roleplaying a character.  Generating the story about those events is a creative act separate unto itself.

Story isn't created through roleplay and then retold, Story is created through memory and the creative process when told.

The proof?  Next time you run a session, ask each of your players to write a short story based on the events that occurred.  Compare them.  One set of events, X number of different, sometimes wildly different, stories.

Quote from: Omega;980775Nah, happens on BGG/RPGG too. Just usually from the opposite end. Sometimes from the extreme opposite end.

Ugh, yeah.

Quote from: Omega;980775(...) Concupiscent (...)

Ooh, I was unfamiliar with that word. I like it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980819I spent years upon years reading poster upon poster who slagged chance encounters, sandbox play, random chargen, no plot immunity, playing-to-find-out, develop-in-play, &c as  puerile, 'basic,' 'rollplaying,' right up until the hipsters and poseurs 'rediscovered' D&D and made it 'acceptable' to like the shit I've liked about roleplaying games since I was twelve.

Culminating in old-school-with-"indie"-cred stuff like Dungeon World, kind of Forge-approved "traditional gaming".

Quote from: CRKrueger;980845Except of course that's not what's happening unless you use narrative mechanics.  What you're generating through play is a set of events that occurred as a result of roleplaying a character.  Generating the story about those events is a creative act separate unto itself.

Story isn't created through roleplay and then retold, Story is created through memory and the creative process when told.

The proof?  Next time you run a session, ask each of your players to write a short story based on the events that occurred.  Compare them.

oh let me clarify that.  lol...re-telling the events of a game session as a story afterwards isn't actually something I would ever actually undertake.  I mean my goal in playing is to play, not to create fodder for a story.  But of course, when you tell a story based on a series of events that has happened, that story is always fed through a filter of the individual telling the story.  Stories are ALWAYS a "version" of the real events they describe.

A more accurate way to state my original point is to say that I want the rpg to generate the events and then if anyone involved wants to tell the story of those events later, go for it.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980848A more accurate way to state my original point is to say that I want the rpg to generate the events and then if anyone involved wants to tell the story of those events later, go for it.

I get you.  The reason I try to get IC roleplayers to be less sloppy about using terms like story is that there are roleplayers and designers out there who think that roleplaying creates a story.  That roleplaying is a creative art form that produces an artistic product.  That roleplayers create story whether they realize they are doing it or not.

It was ok for roleplayers to use a generic wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey definition of story that we all knew really wasn't well-connected to the creative writing side of things back in the day, but we ain't back in the day. :D

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980830yeah.  Probably.  And generating a story through play and then re-telling it later is exactly what I want from an rpg.  Having a story in mind ahead of time and then making sure things in the game go pretty much according to that story and hit all the major dramatic notes and so forth isn't.  It's more about having a set of dramatic narrative principles that need to be met than it is an actual plot though (in terms of what I don't like that is).  The idea that characters need to achieve a certain type of narrative arc...that their deaths need to meet a certain dramatic gravitas, that dramatic "spotlight" time needs to be equally distributed among characters, that players need to have a part in directing the narrative outside of the influence the actions of their characters would have in the reality of their world...that sort of thing.

Which storygames are you thinking of that have a story in mind ahead of time and require you to hit a set of dramatic narrative principles? I'm sure there are some but I haven't encountered them.

There are some like Fiasco or Grey Ranks that end tragically or tragicomically in Fiasco's case but how you get there is no predetermined story or forced through dramatic narrative points in Fiasco, except for the twist I guess. Grey Ranks is a bit more of a flawed game but I've never seen it in action and find the rules as written difficult to grasp.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980819Anyone who says that 'trad' gamers or the OSR started this fight is full of shit straight up to their fucking worthless eyeballs.

Oh yeah it is all one sides fault.

That sounds likely.

As usual a very adult and constructive response from BV, our resident manchild:

'Someone once disagreed with me on the internets!'

Quote from: Omega;980777Think of modules as going out to a restaurant and eating rather than cooking all that stuff yourself. Maybee because you cant cook. Maybee to save time. Maybee you like that places cooking better than your own. etc. And there are places that serve you great, and there are places that... dont.

But thats probably a subject for a different thread.

But to follow that analogy, modules are the shriveled dried-up hamburgers under the heat lamps at the local all night gas station at 2 AM.  Even McDonald's would be infinitely better.  Hell, even White Castle would be infinitely better.

I've never read a single module I liked, all the way back to G1.

Quote from: Omega;980775Nah, happens on BGG/RPGG too. Just usually from the opposite end. Sometimes from the extreme opposite end.

I think the more common outlook here tends to be that narrative and more importantly a story is a natural outgrowth of the gameplay.
Gronan was punched in the nuts by Celerus because he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time by the players own action, or inaction.. Rather than no matter what Gronan does, such as wisely fleeing the country to the fabled Island of Concupiscent Redheads, Celerus is going to appear and punch Gronan in the nuts. Bonus points if the soon to be doubled over Gronan can't even leave the city, or the damn street because... STORY!

Dang, SOMEBODY listens.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980828Y'know, the question was asked and us "guys who hate narrative story elements" in our rpgs are just trying to answer...it's hard to go all kumbaya and answer the question at the same time...

Sure, no one is saying hug it out but is shit like "up to their worthless eyeballs" really necessary? The "brain damage" pretentious crap was stupid as Hell too. Its just different preferences over silly games. You've got some (not all) people in this thread and other similar ones acting like this is Serious Business.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980867But to follow that analogy, modules are the shriveled dried-up hamburgers under the heat lamps at the local all night gas station at 2 AM.  Even McDonald's would be infinitely better.  Hell, even White Castle would be infinitely better.

I've never read a single module I liked, all the way back to G1.

Gotcha GofS but there are obviously lots of people that have a very different opinion of them. They have sold, and still do, thousands of copies and practically every new mainstream game includes them eventually. Your distaste is noted but your comparison is strictly yours. Most modules Ive read were not Outback Steakhouses certainly but I wouldnt call them vomit worthy. Thats just been my impression of course.

I like to get one or two modules per RPG, just to get an idea of what the game designer(s) intend an adventure for their RPG to be.  Doesn't mean that the module will be used, but it can be a good starting point and may help clarify some things.

Quote from: Celestial;980877I like to get one or two modules per RPG, just to get an idea of what the game designer(s) intend an adventure for their RPG to be.  Doesn't mean that the module will be used, but it can be a good starting point and may help clarify some things.

This is where I am. I usually don't run modules but I've found they can be illuminating as to tha authorial intent of the setting and sometimes elements within it. And sometimes you can mine them for ideas and inspiration. As a material example. GURPS Transhuman Space is a game that would have used a few more published scenarios as a guide to what PCs could do in the setting. It didn't help that the first one 'Orbital Decay' paints an incorrect impression of the setting. At least according to some fans (and IIRC, the current Line Developer).

Quote from: Voros;980858Which storygames are you thinking of that have a story in mind ahead of time and require you to hit a set of dramatic narrative principles? I'm sure there are some but I haven't encountered them.

There are some like Fiasco or Grey Ranks that end tragically or tragicomically in Fiasco's case but how you get there is no predetermined story or forced through dramatic narrative points in Fiasco, except for the twist I guess. Grey Ranks is a bit more of a flawed game but I've never seen it in action and find the rules as written difficult to grasp.

Honestly, I don't know.  I haven't taken part in one of these discussions in several years and I can't remember specific names of any games that do this stuff.  But as you say, I'm pretty sure they exist.  I mean just looking up "story games" on google leads me to blog posts such as

http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/460/defining-story-games/

in which the fellow basically provides his definition of story games and it's largely the sort of thing I'm not interested in.  I don't spend a whole lot of time investigating stuff I'm not interested in.  I also don't go into forums and threads that I know are full of people discussing stuff I'm not interested in (or actively dislike) and try and start shit up with them.  The times I've found myself involved in these "debates" have usually been as a result of something I've seen posted in a more general forum (such as this very thread) or in a thread related to a game I do like that somebody else (a "story gamer" if you will) has dropped a little bomb in.  

I can remember a few years back there seemed to be a lot of folks over on rpg.net who were awfully troubled by the fact that their characters in D&D kept getting killed by random kobold arrows to the eye.  I mean heck, if D&D is supposed to be so influenced by Conan stories and what not how come my character is such a weakling?  Conan is always kicking the asses of the People of the Black Circle and I keep sticking my thumb on a poisoned needle trap and dying!  What gives?

Meh.  I enjoy modules.  Some are better than others.  I'm not the imaginative uber genius GM some others apparently are...many modules are as good as anything I can come up with on my own.  lol...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980880Meh.  I enjoy modules.  Some are better than others.  I'm not the imaginative uber genius GM some others apparently are...many modules are as good as anything I can come up with on my own.  lol...

I used to look down on modules and the people who used them... but change of perspective happens and while I'm not likely to ever run one 'as is' I now see them as cookbooks... recipes for dishes that might not have occurred to me, and since I know how to cook without instructions I feel free to riff off their ingredients and add my own.
Also, they're sometimes useful examples for seeing how a game is intended to be played. Like, I recently picked up Nightmares Underneath and it has an interesting take on 'dungeons'... but no sample dungeon to illustrate its ideas. So then I bought City of Poison (https://redboxvancouver.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/city-of-poison-a-free-adventure-for-the-nightmares-underneath/) which is a module for the game so I could get a better idea of an 'Incursion'.

I think there are some great modules out there, I don't see what is so terrible about them. The idea that you should just invent your own exclusively, not sure how many people unfamiliar with GMing or RPGs could do that. And there's the time investment. Same thing for settings.

And by that logic, why use pre-made rules, don't real GMs come up with their own systems too??!!

One of the reasons I gave up D&D once I hit university was it was a time suck. More use of modules may have kept me in the game.

I've been revisiting the classic D&D modules and found several I'm interested in re-running or running for the first time: Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, ToH, Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, Night's Dark Terror, Treasure Hunt, When a Star Falls, Isle of Dread, The Lost City, Temple of Death.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980819My apologies, Grover - I put you on Ignore a long time ago, and I thought I was replying to Voros.

The reply works either way, though.

I've had my differences with Grovie in the past, but in this particular case, referring to the original post, I think the poor son of a bitch was actually trying to have a reasonable discussion.

Quote from: David Johansen;980750I'm sorry to hear about where you live.  I'm in Lethbridge Alberta, a small rural city but I've spent a few years in small towns and I'm with you on "country music."

To address this idea in light of Grove's first post in the thread... what someone posts is influenced by every single thing that's going on in their lives, and at one point or another every person loses, at least temporarily, the ability to separate their feelings on different matters.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980876Gotcha GofS but there are obviously lots of people that have a very different opinion of them. They have sold, and still do, thousands of copies and practically every new mainstream game includes them eventually. Your distaste is noted but your comparison is strictly yours. Most modules Ive read were not Outback Steakhouses certainly but I wouldnt call them vomit worthy. Thats just been my impression of course.

Oh, I know my opinion is in the minority.

There's a lot of modules that are good, Voros gave some examples.  WFRP was famous for good adventures.  Even if you never run a single module as written or even anything remotely close to as written, you can still get tons of mileage out of the maps, npcs, unique magic items, monsters etc.  

Even if you design every adventure yourself the way God intended, by writing with a piece of coal on the back of a shovel by the light of a tallow candle, after walking to the woodshed 5 miles uphill through snow, you still are pulling ideas from everything you've ever read, seen, heard, etc. so why not have more adventure ideas swirling around the fetid sludge of your subconscious? :D

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;980879I can remember a few years back there seemed to be a lot of folks over on rpg.net who were awfully troubled by the fact that their characters in D&D kept getting killed by random kobold arrows to the eye.  I mean heck, if D&D is supposed to be so influenced by Conan stories and what not how come my character is such a weakling?  Conan is always kicking the asses of the People of the Black Circle and I keep sticking my thumb on a poisoned needle trap and dying!  What gives?

I remember this vividly.  When I pointed out that the intention of the game was that you didn't know if you were Conan or Taurus of Nemedia until the game was over, I got slagged.

In that or another similar thread there was much bitching about things like Ear Seekers "fucking over players for doing what they were trained," and "Gygax making the game less fun."

Apparently, many people want to "activate standard Door Opening Procedure" and have it always work flawlessly.

Quote from: Nexus;980878This is where I am. I usually don't run modules but I've found they can be illuminating as to tha authorial intent of the setting and sometimes elements within it. And sometimes you can mine them for ideas and inspiration. As a material example. GURPS Transhuman Space is a game that would have used a few more published scenarios as a guide to what PCs could do in the setting. It didn't help that the first one 'Orbital Decay' paints an incorrect impression of the setting. At least according to some fans (and IIRC, the current Line Developer).

I definitely agree. Modules as examples of "So what do we do?" can be very important, even if the answer is "Not that" (qv Keep on the Shadowfell).

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of modules over the years. Like others have said, even if you don't run them entirely as they were written, you can often pull NPCs, Monsters, Encounters etc. A lot of modules get used as things I can pull off the shelf in a pinch when something from them suddenly feels relevant to what is going on in a game.

There is also something to be said for running them as intended to get a sense of what the designer is going for. Sometimes you realize a thing you didn't think would work at all, works great. You also see what clearly doesn't work.

I have united everyone into telling me why modules are awesome.  Universal Brotherhood!

Kumbiya, my Lord, Kumbiya...






(The preceeding post may contain sarcasm, humor, and/or flatulence.  Take seriously at your own risk.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980906I have united everyone into telling me why modules are awesome.  Universal Brotherhood!

Kumbiya, my Lord, Kumbiya...






(The preceeding post may contain sarcasm, humor, and/or flatulence.  Take seriously at your own risk.)

well...they're awesome as long as they aren't all railroadey!  ;)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980890I've had my differences with Grovie in the past, but in this particular case, referring to the original post, I think the poor son of a bitch was actually trying to have a reasonable discussion.

And for the most part I got one. I have a better understanding now of why some of the members here responded so hostile towards my own approach to GMing and the examples I gave. I didnt realize there actually was a sort of "war" going on between the two camps and some of the shitty attitudes that caused it to escalate. Ive been gaming a LONG time but was pretty new to the industry and culture, if that makes any sense. This has been enlightening. I think I can handle some of BV's, Gronan's and a few of the other's abuse a bit better now!

Quote from: rgrove0172;980911And for the most part I got one. I have a better understanding now of why some of the members here responded so hostile towards my own approach to GMing and the examples I gave. I didnt realize there actually was a sort of "war" going on between the two camps and some of the shitty attitudes that caused it to escalate. Ive been gaming a LONG time but was pretty new to the industry and culture, if that makes any sense. This has been enlightening. I think I can handle some of BV's, Gronan's and a few of the other's abuse a bit better now!

Well, in the case of BV and me, the best response to be given shit is give it right back.  Because at the end of the day, it's all just opinion.

And as my dear wife says, "Opinions are like assholes.  Everybody's got one, and they're all full of shit except your own."

But I kind of know what you mean about being out of touch.  I came back to gaming about 2000 and shortly after started frequenting game forums.

And, as BV said in Post 117, "I spent years upon years reading poster upon poster who slagged chance encounters, sandbox play, random chargen, no plot immunity, playing-to-find-out, develop-in-play, &c as  puerile, 'basic,' 'rollplaying,' right up until the hipsters and poseurs 'rediscovered' D&D and made it 'acceptable' to like the shit I've liked about roleplaying games since I was twelve."

I had virtually point for point the same experience, plus "Your old rules are OBJECTIVELY WRONG!  And you're BAD and STUPID for liking them!"  And, of course, let's not forget "OD&D is (multiple things that are in point of fact contradicted in the text) and that's why it sucks!"

After a few years of having sandpaper run through your urethra, you get a bit tetchy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980894Oh, I know my opinion is in the minority.

I'm not sure about modules. When I've played through them they were usually pretty ordinary, but that could have been the DM, not the module - it's not the tool, it's the tool using the tool. And in all honesty I've rarely run them myself.

I'm uncertain whether it's just the modules I've got, or it's something inherent in modules. It may be that the most fun is that randomness and back-and-forth around the game table, and that you can't really prepare all that ahead of time in a text. Or it might be they're just badly-done. I just don't know.

In the meantime I just roll everything up.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980906Universal Brotherhood!

THat's a good module yeah. For Shadowrun. :)

Quote from: Itachi;980919THat's a good module yeah. For Shadowrun. :)

People whine to this day about Tomb of Horrors, heh, send them through Missing Blood or Queen Euphoria.

I wonder if I'd make any money with a module called "Rocks Fall!  Everyone Dies!" that does exactly what it says on the tin.

In other words, "32 pages of TPKs."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980942I wonder if I'd make any money with a module called "Rocks Fall!  Everyone Dies!" that does exactly what it says on the tin.

In other words, "32 pages of TPKs."

Some, but not much.

Out of curiosity is that 32 pages of rocks falling or are you planning some variety in the method by which the DM kills all the PCs?

32 pages of "Gronan's Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Big Ways for Big TPKs."  In other words, as many different ways as I can think of.

Back to "why do people overrreact to all kinds of dumb shit" --

The human brain is really good at pattern matching.  Maybe when somebody, for example, writes "rollplaying" your brain connects it to every other time you've seen "rollplaying" and you experience them all again on some level.

Sort of like the old "when you connect to a computer, you connect to every computer that has ever connected to that one."  So "the same old shit" carries more and more baggage in our brains.

Just a hypothesis.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;98094732 pages of "Gronan's Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Big Ways for Big TPKs."  In other words, as many different ways as I can think of.

I'd buy it (a pretty rare thing these days), just for the comedy value. And for the counterpoint to all the annoying other GM advice I've seen recently.

Q: "How do I balance every encounter so that the players get just the right amount of challenge, but never get bored or sad or upset in any way?"
A: "You don't. Look around for a better GM to replace you as GM, and learn from them. If there is none, use the encounter tables and what is in the world to determine what they encounter. If they stupidly fight things that are stronger than they are, see if they are smart and fortunate enough to escape with some of their lives and limbs, or not."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980949Back to "why do people overrreact to all kinds of dumb shit" --

The human brain is really good at pattern matching.  Maybe when somebody, for example, writes "rollplaying" your brain connects it to every other time you've seen "rollplaying" and you experience them all again on some level.

Sort of like the old "when you connect to a computer, you connect to every computer that has ever connected to that one."  So "the same old shit" carries more and more baggage in our brains.

Just a hypothesis.

I think that was my reaction to reading T. Foster dismiss OD&D as the 'beta version' and B/X and BECMI as the 'kiddie version' of D&D. Reminded me of those assholes who hung out in game stories in the 80s using the exact same insults, who usually convinced a few members of your play group to parrot the same bullshit.

I wouldn't dismiss all those complaints about random tables, unfair TPKs and the like, these mechanics were often implemented poorly by young, inexperienced or just plain asshole DMs. I think everyone has some of those experiences when they start out, what I don't understand is why anyone continues to play with those DMs long into adulthood.

The concerns about white room balance though you still see being debated when it comes to 5e, strikes me the types who think it is an issue are more theorycrafting number-crunchers rather than actual GMs with groups.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;98094732 pages of "Gronan's Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Big Ways for Big TPKs."  In other words, as many different ways as I can think of.

The Kickstarter for the collection of Grimtooth's traps pulled in over 170k, and I recall a number of those were practically instant-kill affairs for either single adventurers or entire parties. So there's no limit to what people will buy if it's entertaining to read.

I was thinking the same thing. I just picked up the Grimtooth Traps in a Bundle of Holding.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980896I remember this vividly.  When I pointed out that the intention of the game was that you didn't know if you were Conan or Taurus of Nemedia until the game was over, I got slagged.

Voros and Nexus can run around with bags over their heads and their thumbs up their sphincters pretending to be the gurus of right-thinking and rectitude, but that's exactly what it was like for a long fucking time on most of the mainstream gaming forums. It's not, like, my opinion, man - it's in the archives of EN World and Big Purple and RPGeek and it's trivially easy to find, once you stop pretending it isn't there and have the intellectual honesty and integrity to go looking for it before talking out of your browneye.

And I'm fucking sick to death of dickless self-appointed thread nannies and tone police telling anyone how they should express themselves. All you're doing is admitting to the entire gawdamned world that you don't have a fucking ounce of control over your own emotional state when some idiot on the intretubes shows you his arse. Fuck you and your fucking self-righteous indignation, you emotionally stunted mole-rats.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980867But to follow that analogy, modules are the shriveled dried-up hamburgers under the heat lamps at the local all night gas station at 2 AM.  Even McDonald's would be infinitely better.  Hell, even White Castle would be infinitely better.

I've never read a single module I liked, all the way back to G1.

Nah, modules span from the greasy spoon to the Red Lobster and up. But like all else in gaming. One persons going to think my idea of the greasy spoon is their ideal Red Lobster.

Im rather picky about the modules I like and out of about a hundred spanning the early era of D&D I can count about 10 I really like and some more I think are at least ok with some tinkering.

Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread are still my go-to modules as they hit a great balance between focus and freeform. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and The Lost City I like for its focus, yet freedom of action therein. Theres a couple of others like the 2e Darkness Rising series that stand out.

And thats not counting the many rather nicely done mini-modules in Dragon and Dungeon, and more in magazines like early White Dwarf & Imagine.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980896I remember this vividly.  When I pointed out that the intention of the game was that you didn't know if you were Conan or Taurus of Nemedia until the game was over, I got slagged.

In that or another similar thread there was much bitching about things like Ear Seekers "fucking over players for doing what they were trained," and "Gygax making the game less fun."

Apparently, many people want to "activate standard Door Opening Procedure" and have it always work flawlessly.

1: Or point out the various times Conan nearly dies and only lived due to absolute dumb luck, and/or, a desperation move.

2: Or traps in general. Or anything that actually harms the PC in a few of the extreme cases.

3: Some people really should be playing board games instead. And some board gamers should be playing RPGs instead. And a few should stay the hell away from both.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980906I have united everyone into telling me why modules are awesome.  Universal Brotherhood!

Kumbiya, my Lord, Kumbiya...

Well if its any consolation. I think most modules arent awesome. They might be maybee ok. But theres alot of rather boring modules out there spanning the entirety of TSR. Never seen a Pazio module so cant say on their quality. But to hear you and others describe them. Doesn't sound like many are interesting. Which is par for the course with modules, RPGs, whatever.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980942I wonder if I'd make any money with a module called "Rocks Fall!  Everyone Dies!" that does exactly what it says on the tin.

In other words, "32 pages of TPKs."

Been done. Grimtooths Traps. 1 to whatever number it is up to now. Pretty much a DM's shopping list of TPKs waiting to happen.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980965...
And I'm fucking sick to death of dickless self-appointed thread nannies and tone police telling anyone how they should express themselves. All you're doing is admitting to the entire gawdamned world that you don't have a fucking ounce of control over your own emotional state when some idiot on the intretubes shows you his arse. Fuck you and your fucking self-righteous indignation, you emotionally stunted mole-rats.

Yeah we're the ones with no control of our emotional state because of what people say on the internet, lol. Seriously BV: do you have a drinking problem? Whenever you post it reminds me of a raging alcoholic losing their shit over nothing.

Whenever you threadcrap, which let's face it is pretty much all you do these days, I'm reminded of the immortal words of the Mooch about a certain someone 'sucking his own cock.'

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980949Back to "why do people overrreact to all kinds of dumb shit" --

The other problem is when you have run into some loony declaration thats patently false and you've seen in the past how these sorts of falsehoods can take root and fester like a cancer and for some the gut reaction is to cauterize now before it has a chance.

Others are just fed up with the same damn screed over and over and over and over ad freaking nausium.

Its like how in the board gaming biz whenever some new kid comes on the scene with this great idea to make a CCG. And gets nuked from orbit by former players AND designers. Because its the only way to be sure.

Quote from: Omega;980969Never seen a Pazio module so cant say on their quality.

It varies a lot. Rise of the Runelords for instance is pretty good. The big failing tends not to be that they hard railroad the PCs, rather that encounters tend to be static, nearly always combat, and in the worst case you get linear strings of static combat encounters. But a lot of eg Goodman or Troll Lord games modules I have are no better that way. At least Paizo stuff looks pretty.

Quote from: Voros;980972Yeah we're the ones with no control of our emotional state because of what people say on the internet, lol.

I think your an effete moron, and I will sometimes go out of my way to bust your sack because of that, but you couldn't make me angry on a bet. I don't take you or anyone else on the this big truck seriously enough to get anything more than wryly amused.  

Quote from: Voros;980972Seriously BV: do you have a drinking problem?

Yes, I do have a problem - I don't drink nearly enough and really need to start drinking way more often.

Quote from: Voros;980972When you threadcrap, which let's face it is pretty much all you do these days . . .

Now here's the thing - I may shake my ass like a mandrill in heat, but I never threadcrap. When I post, it's to make people think - yes, even (or perhaps especially) the Beatles lyrics the other day.

I prefer location modules vs. the railroads. I get little or no value out of these Event 1, now Event 2, now Event 3 adventures, but I get they are popular. The RPG hobby has huge numbers of non-gamers who read RPGs and reading these "adventure paths" must provide some kind of vicarious experience. And if there's a market, its gonna get catered to.

The worst offenders are the living campaign adventures - Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms and Pathfinder Society are almost universally painful.

Location modules seem more useful as you can rip bits off, use it as a mini-setting, etc. For me, the best modules have been the mini-settings where I can sandbox it. Its why I greatly preferred Judges Guild to TSR stuff back in the day. And even then, I bought stuff to ripoff for my own adventures.

I gotta disagree with CRK about Warhammer modules. I found them to be overwritten in the extreme and the Doom Stones campaign was like being strapped on the side of the train. But I didn't enjoy Masks of Nylarathotep for CoC either.

I've run a few adventure paths and modules in my day and they're almost universally the weakest games we had. That said I still love modules and adventure paths as a resource for mining maps, location, npcs etc

I don't mind narrative or story based elements but I prefer them to be in the players hands as much as mine. I'm not looking to play puppet master or novelist I'm running a game for the mutual enjoyment of myself and friends.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980980I think your an effete moron...

Effete...you do realize you're acting macho on an RPG forum? Talk about amusing.

Whenever you post don't you notice the actually OT posts just continue, as they just did right now?

That's because you're like the neighbourhood drunk who stumbles into the local pub, calls everyone a motherfucker and then passes out and pisses himself.

Quote from: HorusArisen;980995I've run a few adventure paths and modules in my day and they're almost universally the weakest games we had. That said I still love modules and adventure paths as a resource for mining maps, location, npcs etc

I don't mind narrative or story based elements but I prefer them to be in the players hands as much as mine. I'm not looking to play puppet master or novelist I'm running a game for the mutual enjoyment of my dealer and friends.

I found that even as youngsters we started with modules and then as the PCs developed we could just go more off their own actions and interactions with NPCs and the setting as the play filled it out. That's the advantage of longer term play I think.

Sometimes I wonder where I might find some storygaming-uber-alles types. I feel like I would benefit from listening to them for a while. That is... I feel like by listening to them for a while I would start finding them every bit as annoying as I find the "you're going to wander around experiencing boring, disjointed hassles for a while and then die a pointless death in the mud because you rolled a 1, and so help me YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT BECAUSE IMMERSION!!!" rhetoric that I hear... well, absolutely everywhere, really. And then I'd at least be able to understand where that attitude is coming from. :p

Seriously, though, on the whole sandbox-versus-railroad issue I'm quite comfortable taking a middle ground. I want to feel like I'm in control of my own destiny and that my accomplishments are entirely my own. I also want to be guaranteed a good time and a satisfying conclusion to the narrative. Those goals are impossible to fully achieve at the same time. So I don't try to achieve both of them fully. I try to achieve both of them partly, and maximise my chances of avoiding both the "do I even need to be here for this?" failure state and the aforementioned "pointless death in the mud" failure state.

Quote from: Voros;980998I found that even as youngsters we started with modules and then as the PCs developed we could just go more off their own actions and interactions with NPCs and the setting as the play filled it out. That's the advantage of longer term play I think.

Definitely

Quote from: Omega;9809681: Or point out the various times Conan nearly dies and only lived due to absolute dumb luck, and/or, a desperation move.

No, what you point out is the fact that huge numbers of people in Conan stories DID die.  Conan was the PC that managed to live long enough to have his stories told.  That's the fundamental difference between the rpg I want to play and a novel or short story - when I roll up a character there's a slim chance he might be Conan but it's far more likely he's just a red shirt.  If every character I roll up is Conan, then no character stands out and attains any special status.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981012No, what you point out is the fact that huge numbers of people in Conan stories DID die.  Conan was the PC that managed to live long enough to have his stories told.  That's the fundamental difference between the rpg I want to play and a novel or short story - when I roll up a character there's a slim chance he might be Conan but it's far more likely he's just a red shirt.  If every character I roll up is Conan, then no character stands out and attains any special status.

True, but that's why I rarely play the same game more than a few times. I keep every character I rolling up from being Conan by just rolling up a single Conan-wannabe - and since he's going to be the only time I play that particular archetype, I'd rather he didn't turn out to be a redshirt.

That too.

But its a common fallacy they keep trotting out. "Well the main character is immune to death!" Says who? And what makes you think you are the main character hmm?

Or the old fallback from the other direction of "I hate playing in an established setting because cannon wont let me be the star!" says who? What makes you think you cant be significant?

ad nausium.

Quote from: HorusArisen;980995I don't mind narrative or story based elements but I prefer them to be in the players hands as much as mine. I'm not looking to play puppet master or novelist I'm running a game for the mutual enjoyment of myself and friends.

What are some games that handle this as you like?

Quote from: Baeraad;981002Sometimes I wonder where I might find some storygaming-uber-alles types. I feel like I would benefit from listening to them for a while. That is... I feel like by listening to them for a while I would start finding them every bit as annoying as I find the "you're going to wander around experiencing boring, disjointed hassles for a while and then die a pointless death in the mud because you rolled a 1, and so help me YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT BECAUSE IMMERSION!!!" rhetoric that I hear... well, absolutely everywhere, really. And then I'd at least be able to understand where that attitude is coming from. :p

The situation reminds me a great deal of threads I've seen where vegetarians/vegans throw down. Allot of overblown indignation even flat out anger about what someone else is doing with both sides firmly convinced they're the persecuted ones.

Quote from: Baeraad;981014True, but that's why I rarely play the same game more than a few times. I keep every character I rolling up from being Conan by just rolling up a single Conan-wannabe - and since he's going to be the only time I play that particular archetype, I'd rather he didn't turn out to be a redshirt.

you're doing a different thing than me.  That's cool.

Quote from: Baeraad;981002Sometimes I wonder where I might find some storygaming-uber-alles types. I feel like I would benefit from listening to them for a while. That is... I feel like by listening to them for a while I would start finding them every bit as annoying as I find the "you're going to wander around experiencing boring, disjointed hassles for a while and then die a pointless death in the mud because you rolled a 1, and so help me YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT BECAUSE IMMERSION!!!" rhetoric that I hear... well, absolutely everywhere, really. And then I'd at least be able to understand where that attitude is coming from. :p.

It pretty much comes from happening upon folks who describe the type of game I like as "you're going to wander around experiencing boring, disjointed hassles for a while and then die a pointless death in the mud because you rolled a 1, and so help me YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT BECAUSE IMMERSION!!!" since that's pretty much the attitude the average "story gamer" who gets on my nerves has...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981025It pretty much comes from happening upon folks who describe the type of game I like as "you're going to wander around experiencing boring, disjointed hassles for a while and then die a pointless death in the mud because you rolled a 1, and so help me YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT BECAUSE IMMERSION!!!" since that's pretty much the attitude the average "story gamer" who gets on my nerves has...

I know right?  There went another Irony-Meter.  But...he was joking...kind of.  Pretty sure the "death in the mud" has not quite so much sarcasm behind it, which is worth the irony-meter by itself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;981028I know right?  There went another Irony-Meter.  But...he was joking...kind of...

kind of...but not really.

Shit-posts like this, coming from some of the fuckheads who like storygames don't help:

https://unplayablegames.blogspot.de/2017/08/osr-design-is-stuck-in-past-and-it-is.html
https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?808224-OSR-design-is-stuck-in-the-past-and-it-is-a-pity/page4

To the storygames forum admin's credit, he rightly closed the thread and called this guy out on the bullshit, but the thread is still open in RPGNet.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;981031Shit-posts like this, coming from some of the fuckheads who like storygames don't help:

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?808224-OSR-design-is-stuck-in-the-past-and-it-is-a-pity/page4

Are you calling my post in there a shit post?  I thought I was politely addressing someone who seems very confused about what OSR gaming is.

Edit: Nevermind, you were calling the OP the shit-poster.  I was trying to argue in good faith, but his last post makes it pretty clear.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980783I'm sure that you could develop a story through the use of a chess set, but it's not the game's primary aspect.

No, it isn't, but "The Immortal Game," a short story by Poul Anderson is based on a famous (in chess circles) nineteenth century game.

Quote from: Baeraad;981002Sometimes I wonder where I might find some storygaming-uber-alles types. I feel like I would benefit from listening to them for a while. That is... I feel like by listening to them for a while I would start finding them every bit as annoying as I find the "you're going to wander around experiencing boring, disjointed hassles for a while and then die a pointless death in the mud because you rolled a 1, and so help me YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT BECAUSE IMMERSION!!!" rhetoric that I hear... well, absolutely everywhere, really. And then I'd at least be able to understand where that attitude is coming from. :p

* SNAP *

Ow.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;980980I think your an effete moron, and I will sometimes go out of my way to bust your sack because of that, but you couldn't make me angry on a bet. I don't take you or anyone else on the this big truck seriously enough to get anything more than wryly amused.  


Yes, I do have a problem - I don't drink nearly enough and really need to start drinking way more often.


Now here's the thing - I may shake my ass like a mandrill in heat, but I never threadcrap. When I post, it's to make people think - yes, even (or perhaps especially) the Beatles lyrics the other day.

You do have some very valid points BV but your heated mandrill ass shaking is so off putting Im willing to bet many just pass your posts by as so much ranting. I know I did, for a while, expecting offensive bullshoy and rarely being disappointed. I think you would be more influential if you toned it down a bit - but hey, to each their own!

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981012No, what you point out is the fact that huge numbers of people in Conan stories DID die.  Conan was the PC that managed to live long enough to have his stories told.  That's the fundamental difference between the rpg I want to play and a novel or short story - when I roll up a character there's a slim chance he might be Conan but it's far more likely he's just a red shirt.  If every character I roll up is Conan, then no character stands out and attains any special status.

Ill have to disagree here. In my experience even Howard's original stories paint Conan as something special... even in his youth he something to be reckoned with above and beyond even the tough Cimmerians. Time and time again he is described as standing tall over those around him, and not just in stature. Over and over he is the last to go down or the only survivor not because of luck but because of prowess. If you wanted to play Conan in an RPG you couldnt simply rely on luck and hope for the best, youd have to start off with something pretty special or have a mechanism in place to allow him to aspire to the same level witnessed in the stories.  Sure, one can play a regular guy who might, or might not, achieve greatness but I think most players want to play somebody special, a hero for lack of a better term. I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981064I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

When I DMed Dungeon Crawl Classics, it was like a breath of fresh air. They players went through about a dozen characters (The trips back to town for more fresh characters was particularly amusing) before completing the funnel, and we played a bit more until scheduling killed the campaign. Most importantly, everyone had fun.
Up until then, our 4th editions campaigns had been very "safe". I can't remember a character dying. I had one encounter in Dark Sun that came close, and one of the players even said "What happens if my character dies?" I mean, that's how stolid the games had been.
I don't GM every game like a DCC funnel, but I'm glad I did at least once.

Quote from: Voros;980997Effete...you do realize you're acting macho on an RPG forum?

I mock. I mock relentlessly. Because you have it coming. Because we all have it coming.

And you and Pundejo are welcome to huddle together to figure out who the coolest kids on a site about tabletop role playing games are (hint: if we were cool, none of us would be here) or try to rack up 'Likes' and '+1s' to feed your starved and stunted  egos.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981064I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

Generally. its not my cuppa either. For a horror game, I can see it. But in general, not my thing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981064I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

Likewise, many don't see the fun in playing a character who has "plot immunity" and survives everything that is thrown at them. Without chance of failure, there is no challenge, and without challenge, then victory does not taste as sweet.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;981031Shit-posts like this, coming from some of the fuckheads who like storygames don't help:

https://unplayablegames.blogspot.de/2017/08/osr-design-is-stuck-in-past-and-it-is.html
https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?808224-OSR-design-is-stuck-in-the-past-and-it-is-a-pity/page4

To the storygames forum admin's credit, he rightly closed the thread and called this guy out on the bullshit, but the thread is still open in RPGNet.

That article was some of the most pretentious twaddle I've ever read.

Here's the thing: being tired of zero-to-hero and "sorry, you're Taurus of Nemedia, not Conan of Cimmeria" long predates story games and the Forge and all that. My friends and I were already there by the mid-1980s. 4d6, arrange to suit; max HP at first level; switching to other systems that gave you more competent starting characters; you name it--our take on D&D was not "Tower of the Elephant" (as Gronan has advocated) but "Red Nails"--Conan and Valeria go into a dungeon, but they're sure not first level characters. Now you could rationalize that they're higher level themselves at this point in their careers, that Xuchotil was a killer dungeon, etc., etc., and that would be fine. But we just wanted to start there and cut out the origin sequence. I don't mind if I die in the Scarlet Citadel, but I don't want to die grinding rats in the basement of the in--that's not plot immunity, it's just eliminating what I personally find boring. And that's what I've found boring for 37 years. not as a result of Ron Edwards or story-games.com's evil powerz.

That said, I'd rather spoon out my eyeballs than play a great many "story games"--they're usually far too focused for my tastes. But let's be honest and acknowledge the gap between something like Barbarians of Lemuria and Fiasco or Grey Ranks. That characters in the former have Hero Points to influence the dice, soak deadly damage, and sometimes arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose doesn't make that game a molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence or poison to all immersion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981064Ill have to disagree here. In my experience even Howard's original stories paint Conan as something special... even in his youth he something to be reckoned with above and beyond even the tough Cimmerians. Time and time again he is described as standing tall over those around him, and not just in stature. Over and over he is the last to go down or the only survivor not because of luck but because of prowess. If you wanted to play Conan in an RPG you couldnt simply rely on luck and hope for the best, youd have to start off with something pretty special or have a mechanism in place to allow him to aspire to the same level witnessed in the stories.  Sure, one can play a regular guy who might, or might not, achieve greatness but I think most players want to play somebody special, a hero for lack of a better term. I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

In my case, it comes from being a wargamer.

Troop quality varies.  Troops start as green, and as they get battlefield experience they eventually will become "elite."  Many campaign rules even have an explicit system for this.

I don't see the fun in playing the mightiest of them all.  I'd rather rely on my own judgement than the stats of my character.

Just like "Fight in the Skies."  All pilots start out as inexperienced.  If your pilot has 15 kills and all the bonuses that go with being a triple ace, it's because you're DAMN good at playing the game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981095In my case, it comes from being a wargamer.

Troop quality varies.  Troops start as green, and as they get battlefield experience they eventually will become "elite."  Many campaign rules even have an explicit system for this.

I don't see the fun in playing the mightiest of them all.  I'd rather rely on my own judgement than the stats of my character.

Which is totally cool. Those of us coming in as kids 6-7 years later were starting from a very different place.

Quote from: Vargold;981090That characters in the former have Hero Points to influence the dice, soak deadly damage, and sometimes arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose doesn't make that game a molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence or poison to all immersion.

In your opinion. Plenty of others DO find it blunts feelings of danger and becomes something of a 'win' button.
I do like the luck mechanic in DCC though, because it's very limited in what it can do, overuse will bite you in the ass, and it feels like a 'real' resource in the setting.

An excerpt from a chapter:

"And as I've mentioned, in a wargame, you ARE going to lose troops.  We were playing a long-term exploration campaign, but there was no guarantee that the same characters would survive to explore the entire world.  We never expected it, any more than we expected all of our forces in any other wargame to survive completely intact.  If Baker Company gets mauled, you reassign Charlie Company to cover that objective and the war goes on.  It's true that "nobody wins or loses D&D" in the sense that you will never be knocked out of a campaign, but that doesn't mean your forces – that is, your characters – won't suffer losses.
   This last bit is really, really important.  We EXPECTED to take losses.  Not just from wargames, but from the books and stories we read.  Sure, Conan never died, John Carter never died… but there was only one Conan.  There was only ONE John Carter.  We knew that we couldn't all be Conan.  Plus, we'd read a LOT of mythology and fantasy.  Great heroes die.  Heracles DIED.  Beowulf DIED.  Njall DIED.  King Arthur DIED (hell, the book is CALLED "The Death of Arthur.")  In fact, many of the knights of the Round Table died, often in feuds with one another (so much for the inseperable band of heroes!)  Tristram, Balin, Balan, Galahad, Gawain, Gaheris, Gareth, Agrivain, Lamorak, Pellinore… all DIED.  In the Clark Ashton Smith story "The Seven Geases," the protagonist DIED in the last paragraph when his hand slips – not only dead, but dead on an arbitrary bit of bad luck.  In The Hobbit, 20% of Thorin's original company DIED, including Thorin himself.  In Lord of the Rings, Boromir DIED.  Theoden DIED (by mischance when his horse falls, not even in battle).  Hama DIED.  Denethor DIED (and Denethor is a tragic, noble figure, not the slobbering, gobbling thing that Peter Jackson shat up onto the screen.)"

Quote from: Vargold;981090That said, I'd rather spoon out my eyeballs than play a great many "story games"--they're usually far too focused for my tastes. But let's be honest and acknowledge the gap between something like Barbarians of Lemuria and Fiasco or Grey Ranks. That characters in the former have Hero Points to influence the dice, soak deadly damage, and sometimes arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose doesn't make that game a molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence or poison to all immersion.

To a degree. I draw the line at d6 Star Wars and Character Points/Force Points. They are narrative tools, yes. However, they can only affect the skill or attribute rolls of the character or NPC that spends them. They cannot be used to change the environment around them, so no "arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose" to change the situation the characters find themselves in.

Quote from: Simlasa;981098In your opinion. Plenty of others DO find it blunts feelings of danger and becomes something of a 'win' button.

"In [my/your] opinion" is what this is all about, though, right? Immersion is a spectrum, not a binary state (even if people on that spectrum experience it as a binary state). It's messy: I've been in B/X D&D games where I felt like I was pushing a game piece around and in Microscope games where I was utterly IC for much of the time. And other times I've been totally immersed in 2nd Edition while recoiling from a Fiasco game that felt like going through the motions.

OTOH, Gronan, Lancelot and Bedivere and Ector de Maris all made it to the end of the campaign, and they didn't start as level 1 squires either. 8 of the 9 members of the Fellowship of the Ring lived. Conan walked out of Xuchotil with Valeria. Coll did die in The High King, but it wasn't due to a bad roll while fighting a house cat. Ged and Tenar and Fafhrd and the Mouser and most of the carbon-copy Fellowship in Sword of Shannara made it through. There's taking losses (Theoden gets crushed by a horse fighting one of the most powerful sorcerers in the history of Middle-earth) and there's taking losses (Fineous Fingers fails his open locks roll in room 2 of his first dungeon). Some people opt for a game that gets you to the first option right away; others enjoy the second option. But it's clear to me that the inspirational materials support both.

Quote from: jeff37923;981104To a degree. I draw the line at d6 Star Wars and Character Points/Force Points. They are narrative tools, yes. However, they can only affect the skill or attribute rolls of the character or NPC that spends them. They cannot be used to change the environment around them, so no "arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose" to change the situation the characters find themselves in.

I should clarify: I'm only fine with the environment-changing power in the context of really pulpy stuff, the sort of material where cliffhangers are customary and characters are frequently beneficiaries of improbable coincidences. If a player wants to use one of his "Ass-Saver Points" to find a loose bar in his cell in such an environment, I'm fine with it, especially since he's now down an "Ass-Saver Point" when he faces Set Reborn later on.

In less pulpy games, definitely no environment-changing.

Quote from: jeff37923;981104To a degree. I draw the line at d6 Star Wars and Character Points/Force Points. They are narrative tools, yes. However, they can only affect the skill or attribute rolls of the character or NPC that spends them. They cannot be used to change the environment around them, so no "arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose" to change the situation the characters find themselves in.

Yeah, that's really the demarcation for me as well. If they're just about your PC and could represent something in the setting... like added effort... and aren't unlimited or free of consequence... I'm usually fine (still not something I want in horror, historical, or 'gritty' settings). But editing external stuff, the setting, puts me right off.

Quote from: Vargold;981113OTOH, Gronan, Lancelot and Bedivere and Ector de Maris all made it to the end of the campaign, and they didn't start as level 1 squires either. 8 of the 9 members of the Fellowship of the Ring lived. Conan walked out of Xuchotil with Valeria. Coll did die in The High King, but it wasn't due to a bad roll while fighting a house cat. Ged and Tenar and Fafhrd and the Mouser and most of the carbon-copy Fellowship in Sword of Shannara made it through. There's taking losses (Theoden gets crushed by a horse fighting one of the most powerful sorcerers in the history of Middle-earth) and there's taking losses (Fineous Fingers fails his open locks roll in room 2 of his first dungeon). Some people opt for a game that gets you to the first option right away; others enjoy the second option. But it's clear to me that the inspirational materials support both.

And at the other end of the spectrum there is the guy at GaryCon a couple years back who published a long bitch and wail in his blog because he got shot down playing Dawn Patrol.

And he actually said "I don't want to play a game where I can lose."

This is one of the things I like about Uncharted Worlds, my preferred SF RPG. You have accumulate Data Points which give you +1 to rolls, but you only get them by researching or investigating. So yes, you can leverage a Data Point to get out of the Klingon brig, but only if you've earlier spent time researching Klingon security systems or engineering.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981117And at the other end of the spectrum there is the guy at GaryCon a couple years back who published a long bitch and wail in his blog because he got shot down playing Dawn Patrol.

And he actually said "I don't want to play a game where I can lose."

That's incredibly stupid.

Also, I would love to play Dawn Patrol--never got a chance.

Of course Conan was special.  He was lucky in that he rolled exceptionally high characteristics, and then managed to survive via his wits, brawn, and luck to live a life full of storied adventure.  When I play an rpg though I don't set out with the idea in mind that I'm gaming the life of Conan.  I set out with the notion that I'm taking the role of a character in a world and I'm going to try and get as far as I can with that character.  If I happen to roll up a loser, oh well.  I'll do my best and when that character drops I'll roll up a new one and try again.  That's part of the fun.  I like that.  Somebody else may not like that.  I've never once said my way is the only way.  It's just the way I like it.  As I've said already, a question was posed and I'm trying to answer it.

Quote from: Vargold;981120That's incredibly stupid.

Also, I would love to play Dawn Patrol--never got a chance.

A good friend of mine was at a garage sale a couple of weeks back and found a copy of Dawn Patrol in nearly mint condition.  The dice were still in their unopened plastic bag.  He bought that...for the princely sum of one Canadian dollar.  Lucky sap!

Dawn Patrol was really good, fun, and reasonably simple while letting you do an Immelmann Turn and wind up on your foe's tail.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981124A good friend of mine was at a garage sale a couple of weeks back and found a copy of Dawn Patrol in nearly mint condition.  The dice were still in their unopened plastic bag.  He bought that...for the princely sum of one Canadian dollar.  Lucky sap!

We hates the Bagginses, my precious, we hates it.

(Amazon is asking a minimum of $175 for the game, although it looks like you can get a used copy on eBay for much cheaper.)

Quote from: Vargold;981114I should clarify: I'm only fine with the environment-changing power in the context of really pulpy stuff, the sort of material where cliffhangers are customary and characters are frequently beneficiaries of improbable coincidences. If a player wants to use one of his "Ass-Saver Points" to find a loose bar in his cell in such an environment, I'm fine with it, especially since he's now down an "Ass-Saver Point" when he faces Set Reborn later on.

In less pulpy games, definitely no environment-changing.

I'm all right with dramatic editing if it suits the mood of the game/setting.

This discussion does remind me of my best friend in high school who could not grok the concept of Paranoia. He kept getting pissed off that the Computer was executing his clones on the basis of our scurrilous slanders; meanwhile the rest of us were trying to die in the most spectacular ways and admiring the base treachery of our fellow Troubleshooters. Sigh.

Quote from: Vargold;981113OTOH, Gronan, Lancelot and Bedivere and Ector de Maris all made it to the end of the campaign, and they didn't start as level 1 squires either. 8 of the 9 members of the Fellowship of the Ring lived. Conan walked out of Xuchotil with Valeria. Coll did die in The High King, but it wasn't due to a bad roll while fighting a house cat. Ged and Tenar and Fafhrd and the Mouser and most of the carbon-copy Fellowship in Sword of Shannara made it through. There's taking losses (Theoden gets crushed by a horse fighting one of the most powerful sorcerers in the history of Middle-earth) and there's taking losses (Fineous Fingers fails his open locks roll in room 2 of his first dungeon). Some people opt for a game that gets you to the first option right away; others enjoy the second option. But it's clear to me that the inspirational materials support both.

But again, that's the way novels and stories work.  Conan and most of his allies live.  But think of all the secondary/tertiary characters in the Conan stories (many of whom were very powerful and remarkable individuals in their own right) who died in Conan's wake.  All of those dead characters are like fallen PCs in D&D...their stories don't get focused upon because the Conan tales are about the guy that lived, not all the people that didn't.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981129But again, that's the way novels and stories work.  Conan and most of his allies live.  But think of all the secondary/tertiary characters in the Conan stories (many of whom were very powerful and remarkable individuals in their own right) who died in Conan's wake.  All of those dead characters are like fallen PCs in D&D...their stories don't get focused upon because the Conan tales are about the guy that lived, not all the people that didn't.

Sure. But that was not what was being sold to us at Waldenbooks in 1980. We had to make sense of what was given to us in those boxed sets, and they were not very good about making their core assumptions transparent to eleven-year olds. I looked at the Holmes set and AD&D (which I learned to play from high schoolers who were self-taught) and assumed that this was all about being Fafhrd *and* the Mouser *and* Conan *and* Ged on a team.

Quote from: jeff37923;981082Likewise, many don't see the fun in playing a character who has "plot immunity" and survives everything that is thrown at them. Without chance of failure, there is no challenge, and without challenge, then victory does not taste as sweet.

Failure is always a possibility, cant say I would want to play a game without it either. Having mechanism whereby getting slaughtered turns into being imprisoned or left for dead and that sort of thing is quite different and welcome. Its certainly well represented in heroic fiction.

well be that as it may, we're talking about the here and now of what we like and don't like.  I know what I like now and it is the zero to hero type of thing.  Even from the start though, the first time I played D&D I understood that my character at 1st level was starting at the bottom of the totem pole and I had to work my way up.  I just sort of got it from the get go...and liked it too.

Sure, but I do think it's important in these discussions to keep that history in mind. Seems like nearly all of these debates are just replaying the 1970s arguments over again in variant modes. The one concept from Ron Edwards's GNS malarkey that I like is "drift"--but whereas Edwards thinks it's an abomination that must be purged from a game I consider it a strength. The entire history of RPGs is thankfully one of drift.

Quote from: Vargold;981130I looked at the Holmes set and AD&D (which I learned to play from high schoolers who were self-taught) and assumed that this was all about being Fafhrd *and* the Mouser *and* Conan *and* Ged on a team.

Meanwhile, I hadn't yet read Howard or lieber. I'd been reading horror stories, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, and Lord Dunsany... stories where the protagonists often suffered horrible fates.
I did also read a lot of ERB but his heroes always seemed a bit ridiculous to me... though I loved his settings.
Similarly, I like the crime and action movies of the seventies... but modern action movies often just strike me as too fantastic.
I saw the covers of early D&D and though, 'that looks scary!' and 'those guys are screwed!'
So that's a fundamental difference in tastes going in.

Quote from: Simlasa;981139Meanwhile, I hadn't yet read Howard or lieber. I'd been reading horror stories, Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, and Lord Dunsany... stories where the protagonists often suffered horrible fates.
I did also read a lot of ERB but his heroes always seemed a bit ridiculous to me... though I loved his settings.
Similarly, I like the crime and action movies of the seventies... but modern action movies often just strike me as too fantastic.
So that's a fundamental difference in tastes going in.

All that Lin Carter Adult Fantasy stuff was before my time--I was five when that series ended. For me it was Star Wars, late 1970s Jack Kirby (Devil Dinosaur and Eternals), Roy Thomas on Conan (Bêlit saga era), Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Lloyd Alexander, Ursula K. Le Guin, Ace Conans, and Leiber. So yeah, what a different 5-10 years makes.

EDIT: Oh gods, and the Bros. Hildebrandt's Urshurak--that was probably the most influential of them all. The humiliating truth about my eleven-year old tastes.

Quote from: Vargold;981142All that Lin Carter Adult Fantasy stuff was before my time--I was five when that series ended.

The books were old when I got them too... bought in used bookstores and comic shops where I'd drug my parents to find old copies of Mad magazine... because the covers were 'weird'... or because my uncle gave them to me along with a pile of 'underground' comics... and I was fortunate enough to find an issue of Heavy Metal on a magazine rack in our tiny, Mormon controlled, town.
Like any kid I watched Star Wars and loved it... but I still thought Sword of Shannara was crap.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981095In my case, it comes from being a wargamer.

Troop quality varies.  Troops start as green, and as they get battlefield experience they eventually will become "elite."  Many campaign rules even have an explicit system for this.

I don't see the fun in playing the mightiest of them all.  I'd rather rely on my own judgement than the stats of my character.

Just like "Fight in the Skies."  All pilots start out as inexperienced.  If your pilot has 15 kills and all the bonuses that go with being a triple ace, it's because you're DAMN good at playing the game.

As the argument goes, why not just stick to wargames then?
I'm serious, I play mini wargames for different reasons than RPGs. Some things that work for wargames don't necessarily work for RPGs. Etc, yadda, ...

In general, the things that bug me most are when people lash out at other styles of play with no idea how they work.

I sometimes hear critiques of traditional games such as D&D from story gamers. At least they have played D&D, but they often assume that the way they played (usually badly) is the only possible style. On the other hand, I sometimes hear critiques of story games which sound nothing like my experience of them.

Approaches to "story" differ hugely. In particular, there are modules with a strong storyline that are arguably railroading. (A number of games and lines focused on these - starting with Dragonlance, and including games like Deadlands and Torg.)  However, there are also games that emphasize story but have no pre-planned plot (and indeed make such plotting impossible by switching control and/or random elements).

Quote from: Vargold;981090That said, I'd rather spoon out my eyeballs than play a great many "story games"--they're usually far too focused for my tastes. But let's be honest and acknowledge the gap between something like Barbarians of Lemuria and Fiasco or Grey Ranks. That characters in the former have Hero Points to influence the dice, soak deadly damage, and sometimes arrange for a bar in the prison cell to be loose doesn't make that game a molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence or poison to all immersion.

OK, I can understand Fiasco and Grey Ranks being poison to immersion - but it seems completely off-base to suggest that they are molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence. In both games, your characters are extremely likely to come to die - with lots of failure in getting there.

Quote from: jhkim;981149OK, I can understand Fiasco and Grey Ranks being poison to immersion - but it seems completely off-base to suggest that they are molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence. In both games, your characters are extremely likely to come to die - with lots of failure in getting there.

That's on me. "Molly-coddling indulgence in omnipotence" is an opinion I've seen labeled at games like BoL which eschew the zero-to-hero model; "poison in immersion" was Fiasco and Grey Ranks. I shouldn't have conflated the two.

Quote from: Vargold;981130Sure. But that was not what was being sold to us at Waldenbooks in 1980. We had to make sense of what was given to us in those boxed sets, and they were not very good about making their core assumptions transparent to eleven-year olds. I looked at the Holmes set and AD&D (which I learned to play from high schoolers who were self-taught) and assumed that this was all about being Fafhrd *and* the Mouser *and* Conan *and* Ged on a team.

They didn't sell books on mythology?

Because I read the story of Heraclese when I was about nine.  Also Orion.  And, as mentioned before, Beowulf.

For that matter, Tom Thumb, a story I read at a much earlier age.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981131Failure is always a possibility, cant say I would want to play a game without it either. Having mechanism whereby getting slaughtered turns into being imprisoned or left for dead and that sort of thing is quite different and welcome. Its certainly well represented in heroic fiction.

Heroic fiction is not heroic role-playing gaming.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981152They didn't sell books on mythology?

Because I read the story of Heraclese when I was about nine.  Also Orion.  And, as mentioned before, Beowulf.

For that matter, Tom Thumb, a story I read at a much earlier age.

I can't remember what mythology I had read by 1980. Probably some Greek and some Norse, but the latter would have been coming to me primarily via Marvel's Thor. As for Beowulf, he was soloing wilderness hexcrawls while still a neophyte.

Quote from: Vargold;981158As for Beowulf, he was soloing wilderness hexcrawls while still a neophyte.

I don't think you'll find that in the actual poem.

Quote from: Voros;980689So kids playing pretend aren't playing a game?

Nope.

This is really the crux of the matter. Some people (myself included) have an allergic reaction to bullshit. When someone invites me to play a GAME, be it cards, chess, Monopoly, Axis & Allies, Squad Leader, World In Flames, D&D, Traveller or whatever, I expect that the play and the outcome are not preordained. If it is, then I've just been baited and switched into something fake and fixed and I'm going to be pretty pissed off. I don't watch pro wrestling for the same reason. If you find that unreasonable, you'll really be surprised at how hostile sports fans can get if there's so much as a hint that the fix is in. Maybe if the "storygamers" (a strange term, given how little most of them know about story or games) referred to their games as RPGE...

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. 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 must be sheltered, lucky or both since I have no idea who Ron Edwards is. Apparently you do, and you have my condolences.

Quote from: Voros;980593Really no One Way Truism on K&KA?

A quick search over there and I found this recent thread where all 5e and O/D, B/X and BECMI players (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=2&t=14674&start=30)are thrown under the bus, leaving 'pretty much just us.' If that isn't textbook One Way Truism what is?

Not only that, but for years members of that site were constantly trying to play backseat mod on other sites like Dragonsfoot and even the official D&D forums. Now that a couple of members of the K&K Klan are mods at DF, there are predictable results.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980735Of course, I personally think that modules were the worst thing that ever happened to D&D, so that is the background radiation of my opinion.

I don't think the problem is with the modules themselves, but with bad DMs who use them as-is without much thought. It's like someone just dumping a jar of Prego on some noodles and calling it spaghetti, when anyone with a sense of taste uses it as a starting point and adds to it.

Quote from: Dumarest;981179I don't think you'll find that in the actual poem.

Dude goes for a swim in the monster-filled ocean as his very first heroic feat (since prior to that he's come across as a lazy slacker--the reason why Breca challenges him to the swimming contest and why Unferth taunts him in Heorot). I'm going to call that "soloing a wilderness hexcrawl."

Quote from: VorosSo kids playing pretend aren't playing a game?

Quote from: Elfdart;981184This is really the crux of the matter. Some people (myself included) have an allergic reaction to bullshit. When someone invites me to play a GAME, be it cards, chess, Monopoly, Axis & Allies, Squad Leader, World In Flames, D&D, Traveller or whatever, I expect that the play and the outcome are not preordained. If it is, then I've just been baited and switched into something fake and fixed and I'm going to be pretty pissed off. I don't watch pro wrestling for the same reason. If you find that unreasonable, you'll really be surprised at how hostile sports fans can get if there's so much as a hint that the fix is in. Maybe if the "storygamers" (a strange term, given how little most of them know about story or games) referred to their games as RPGE...

This doesn't make any sense.

I agree that the play and outcome are not pre-ordained in a game. And, indeed, there is no pre-ordained play or outcomes in essentially all the story games that I play -- Fiasco, The Play's the Thing, Polaris, Microscope, Once Upon a Time, etc.  Usually, there is an even greater variety of outcomes than in a traditional RPG session. i.e. When I'm DMing my D&D5 game, I go into a session knowing roughly what the dungeon is and/or what opponents the PCs will be facing. They might win or lose, or negotiate an unexpected result - but I know that there isn't going to be a volcanic eruption in the middle of the fight. If I'm playing Polaris, then volcanic eruptions, solar eclipses, or all kinds of other shit can happen with no warning due to spontaneous escalation.

Hell, the same thing is true of kids playing pretend. When kids play pretend, they make stuff up. If you tell a bunch of kids playing pretend that really Hector is forcing everything to fit with his planned story, then they'll get pissed and tell Hector to play right.

People are sniffing up the wrong dress if they think that "preordained outcome" is the essence of storygames. You do find it in some, with the argument that the journey of the individual characters is the important focus. Examples:

My Life with Master (the Master will be overthrown in the end, but PCs may or may not die or have individual happy endings.)

Grey Ranks (I'm pretty sure the Germans will win.)

Polaris (play long enough and at least one character will--let's face it--turn to the dark side, and the civilization is doomed.)

But that isn't necessarily so--not in the case of Dogs in the Vineyard, although the GMing advice does encourage improvising within and between episodes to encourage a clash of values designed to bring about hard moral choices and/or PvP. I dislike that advice, but nothing forces it mechanically.

Many story games have pretty open narrative pathways (so to speak) but their story-gameness comes from frequent, unavoidable dissociated mechanics, like having incentives to fail in order to gain a bonus later. DitV is an example with the way Fallout works; some versions of Fate seem to have this; Burning Wheel I think has this in its advancement mechanic. There are a lot of other types of dissociation; the most famous of course is the D&D 4e Daily Powers. Many "social combat" systems (Dogs, BW again) are also at least borderline.

I'm still wondering why I'm supposed to care how strangers play games at their tables.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Black Vulmea;981074...to rack up 'Likes' and '+1s' to feed your starved and stunted  egos.

Personally I was just hoping the kudos would make my penis grow larger.

Quote from: jeff37923;981082Likewise, many don't see the fun in playing a character who has "plot immunity" and survives everything that is thrown at them. Without chance of failure, there is no challenge, and without challenge, then victory does not taste as sweet.

Quote from: jeff37923;981157Heroic fiction is not heroic role-playing gaming.

A. Men.

My personal style is event driven sandboxes. It's not a module (of which my hatred of them is Gronan-level gods bless your like-minded soul...). It's also not a true sandbox. I interject adventure if things slow way down or get boring. I want the bad guys to react to the actions of the characters. Sometimes I interject things because I feel like "this would be fun to happen right now!" I want the game to be fun for my players and I want the story to fall out of that fun. If a module is so strict that you HAVE to go to the goblin cave to the get the important clue to know that the evil sorcerer is in the volcano castle... then I think your module sucks. Which, unless you make a super cool sandbox full of maps and random encounters and useful tid-bits, I'm probably going to hate your module anyways. :-P

I was sucked into the Storygames thing. I didn't just happen upon theRPGsite. I washed up here. Lost and confused in a sea of meme-laden shenanigans trying to remember why the fuck I loved RPGs in the first place. Tis why I related to The Pundit's counter-war. Because the original Forge crowd, lead by He Who Shall Remain Unrecognized were hard-selling a reboot of our hobby. It was bullshit and it remains bullshit. I wear my Story Games War medals with pride. Sure, I switched sides half-way through. And I'm super thankful I did.

I think it's cool that people can play the games they want. When I naively embarked on a quest to understand story games better I found a cult. Had they simply billed it as "games of collaborative storytelling where your character is an interface to direct the story vs. interact with the world" I might have liked both kinds of games. But instead, like anyone who survives a cult brainwashing, I was left with a considerably bad taste in my mouth.

These days I'm very happy GMing my "traditional" (original) RPGs without all the fancy narrative doohickeys that still give me a twitch in my left eye. :-D

Quote from: trechriron;981213Personally I was just hoping the kudos would make my penis grow larger.

Hi! This is a very interesting topic that my friends and I like to discuss. Check out these links . . .

Quote from: jhkim;981197This doesn't make any sense.

I agree that the play and outcome are not pre-ordained in a game. And, indeed, there is no pre-ordained play or outcomes in essentially all the story games that I play -- Fiasco, The Play's the Thing, Polaris, Microscope, Once Upon a Time, etc.  Usually, there is an even greater variety of outcomes than in a traditional RPG session. i.e. When I'm DMing my D&D5 game, I go into a session knowing roughly what the dungeon is and/or what opponents the PCs will be facing. They might win or lose, or negotiate an unexpected result - but I know that there isn't going to be a volcanic eruption in the middle of the fight. If I'm playing Polaris, then volcanic eruptions, solar eclipses, or all kinds of other shit can happen with no warning due to spontaneous escalation.

Hell, the same thing is true of kids playing pretend. When kids play pretend, they make stuff up. If you tell a bunch of kids playing pretend that really Hector is forcing everything to fit with his planned story, then they'll get pissed and tell Hector to play right.

Yeah, I don't get the point either. Playing pretend is a game like any other to me, and it's outcome may be as unpredictable as anything.

Quote from: Itachi;981224Yeah, I don't get the point either. Playing pretend is a game like any other to me, and it's outcome may be as unpredictable as anything.

We always called it a game and never had the outcome worked. Hell, allot the time we didn't have setting or limits worked out.

Quote from: jhkim;981197This doesn't make any sense.

I agree that the play and outcome are not pre-ordained in a game. And, indeed, there is no pre-ordained play or outcomes in essentially all the story games that I play -- Fiasco, The Play's the Thing, Polaris, Microscope, Once Upon a Time, etc.  Usually, there is an even greater variety of outcomes than in a traditional RPG session. i.e. When I'm DMing my D&D5 game, I go into a session knowing roughly what the dungeon is and/or what opponents the PCs will be facing. They might win or lose, or negotiate an unexpected result - but I know that there isn't going to be a volcanic eruption in the middle of the fight. If I'm playing Polaris, then volcanic eruptions, solar eclipses, or all kinds of other shit can happen with no warning due to spontaneous escalation.

Hell, the same thing is true of kids playing pretend. When kids play pretend, they make stuff up. If you tell a bunch of kids playing pretend that really Hector is forcing everything to fit with his planned story, then they'll get pissed and tell Hector to play right.

Some game that under the storygames umbrella  seem more 'game like' than traditional rpgs as they're competitive to some degree, someone can be essentially the winner and some even effectively have scores.

Dumarest: "I'm still wondering why I'm supposed to care how strangers play games at their tables."

To care, as in to have a strong opinion about whether they are doing it right or wrong. I wonder that also. However, to care can also mean to be curious, interested, to seek new ideas. I would find a gamer who didn't care in that sense rather odd.

-------------------------------------------------------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

As jkim says I can think of few if any storygames with pre-ordained outcomes. Grey Ranks has a broadly defined outcome, the Polish partisans will lose because it is a historical game taking place at a level where it would be impossible for the young members of the Grey Ranks to change that historical fact.  

The problem with the continued discussion as generalizations is that it increasingly suggests that few of the critics of storygames have read them let alone played them. Concrete examples of games with the flaws discussed would be more effective.

Quote from: Voros;981229As jkim says I can think of few if any storygames with pre-ordained outcomes. Grey Ranks has a broadly defined outcome, the Polish partisans will lose because it is a historical game taking place at a level where it would be impossible for the young members of the Grey Ranks to change that historical fact.  

The problem with the continued discussion as generalizations is that it increasingly suggests that few of the critics of storygames have read them let alone played them. Concrete examples of games with the flaws discussed would be more effective.

Poison'd.

Thanks Jeff. I haven't played or read Poison'd, just read about it.

How pre-determined is the end of the characters in the game? It is like Fiasco in that most characters are highly likely to end badly, or is it more specific?

Would you say it is more pre-determined than the fact that due to the mechanics (and intent of the designers) most CoC adventures or campaigns will end in either madness or death?

What about Poison'd? I don't think much of it but that isn't because it's got a locked-in plot.

Dogs is the example with which I'm most familiar.

• GMing advice that calls for dramatic manipulation within and across scenarios
• Incentives to fail pitting player motivation against character
• "Say yes or roll the dice"--at best, non-advice; at worst, player empowerment at the expense of verisimilitude
• Abstract mechanics (arguably dissociated) that "shape the fiction" instead of simulating any kind of realistic dynamic
• Players are called on to police/referee their own character development (i.e., they can grow or reduce their dice as they like)

That's off the top of my head; there's at least one other example that I can't recall in detail.

But the problem with all this isn't that the game is horrible--somebody likes it--but the insistence by its fans that none of these characteristics really exist, or that they only formalized the practices of well-played traditional games, or that they had no effect on the sense of immersion or first-person in-character point of view. The nuttiness, sophistry, and fatuousness of storygame fans on the net is responsible for much of the backlash against the movement. (The rest is largely from the dumb, smarmy attacks on traditional games, peaking with grognards.txt and slander against a number of D&D fans.)

In a traditional rpg, what matters is what your character does; in a storygame, what matters is who your character is.

It's basically utilitarianism vs Oprah.

Let's put it this way. You know how in Fury there's that scene where Brad Pitt tries to make the scrawny dweeby guy shoot a Nazi PW? In a storygame, that would be the whole campaign. "It's a moral dilemma! Tell us how you feel! Yes, I just finished Philosophy 101 with the "starving men shipwrecked" story, how could you tell?"

This is why some people still hold a grudge against Gygax for putting orc babies in that module. Fuckin' storygamer!

Quote from: Arminius;981239But the problem with all this isn't that the game is horrible--somebody likes it--but the insistence by its fans that none of these characteristics really exist, or that they only formalized the practices of well-played traditional games, or that they had no effect on the sense of immersion or first-person in-character point of view.

In regards to Dogs, I agree with what you bullet pointed but see those as features not bugs. Again you're criticiszing an orange for not being an apple.

It's fine to say it's not your bag or you simply dislike the mechanic but it is pretty pointless to criticize something for not being what you expected, any game should be judged on how well it does what it sets out to do not what you think it should be doing.

In terms of a mechanics effect on immersion, I think that is completely subjective and an unlikely complaint from someone who hasn't been playing RPGs for years. We now take the mechanics of trad RPGs as not immersion breaking but for newbies I think all mechanics have that effect until you become use to them.

Read again.

It doesn't matter whether I think the game is objectively bad--although, I disagree with the idea that I shouldn't judge tastes. But let's stipulate that the quality of the game is irrelevant to the ill-will that's directed toward the storygame sub-hobby. I hate eggplant; that's not a good reason to bear a grudge against people who like eggplant.

But these days I pretty much discount anything coming from the vocal eggplant fans who have a history of claiming that eggplants are the same as apples, or that if I like apples, I must also like eggplants, or that the eggplant is what an apple should be, but fails at being. I'm indifferent to the eggplant itself as long as there isn't a group of dumb, dishonest, arrogant, and crazy people trying to trick me into eating one.

Quote from: Arminius;981243Read again.

It doesn't matter whether I think the game is objectively bad--although, I disagree with the idea that I shouldn't judge tastes.

I didn't say that you shouldn't judge tastes although I would suggest it is pointless to argue taste. To claim anything is 'objectively bad' is a particular disease of the internets and leads nowhere. Outside of science 'objectively' is a very abused term. It is those kind of rhetorical tropes that make so much discussion on the net run into semantic dead ends and personal attacks.

The Something Awful crowd obviously had a lot to do with the bad blood. I'm surprised at just how effective the trolling on both sides has been. But a lot of the people involved aren't the types to ignore trolls.

And the appeal to outrage has become a popular tactic to browbeat even those who have no interest in getting involved. Hence what happened recently to Mark Rein-Hagen on FB and what happened a while ago to Mark Truman Diaz because of his blog post. I continue to be surprised at how much people put up with Anna Krieder's transparent obsessiveness, hostility and powertripping.

I do feel a Peak Outrage has been reached and people are more skeptical and disinclined to indulge the pot-stirrers. It felt like the attempt to go after Zak on the WW videogame failed to gain traction except on TBP, which is hardly a gathering place for storygamers anyway.

I'm surprised at at how long grudges have been held but then with the cataloguing of the net almost anything said can be dug up for endless recrimination.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981064I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

They probably didnt intend it to end that way. I know I sure never intended to lose various magic-users to any given hazard. Its the thrill of the unknown and the risk thats the draw. And the assumption that theres allways a chance to survive or avoid something. Be it through detection, tactics, whatever.

Theres a poison needle trap on the chest. The PCs or thief have a chance to find it. Failing that there might be a save vs poison and failing that someone might have an antidote handy.

Or theres a pit trap. Theres the chance to detect. The chance to trigger, and if triggered theres the assumption the DM isnt being a dick and made it essentially an insta-kill. You 'might' die. But its probably not a guaranteed death. There might even be a chance to make a DEX save or such.

Quote from: Arminius;981243But these days I pretty much discount anything coming from the vocal eggplant fans who have a history of claiming that eggplants are the same as apples, or that if I like apples, I must also like eggplants, or that the eggplant is what an apple should be, but fails at being. I'm indifferent to the eggplant itself as long as there isn't a group of dumb, dishonest, arrogant, and crazy people trying to trick me into eating one.

This is pretty much the crux of it and its the same damn rhetoric used to 'infiltrate' other venues.

Quote from: Voros;981237Thanks Jeff. I haven't played or read Poison'd, just read about it.

How pre-determined is the end of the characters in the game? It is like Fiasco in that most characters are highly likely to end badly, or is it more specific?

Would you say it is more pre-determined than the fact that due to the mechanics (and intent of the designers) most CoC adventures or campaigns will end in either madness or death?

I'd put it along the lines of Fiasco. The premise and general outcome are pretty narrow. Its more about how you get there. Slasher Flick has a broader nature but the general outcomes are somewhat more narrow, at least in the sense that most of the characters are very likely to be killed. Which isn't that different from more traditional horror games like CoC which share some general aspects ( such as more or less normal folks facing a power
evil).

Omega, thanks, although I should have written that the obnoxious behavior isn't really "trying to trick people". It's more like if we have a forum about apples, and eggplant enthusiasts constantly join up, wandering into conversations about apple pie recipes to encourage everyone to try baba ganoush instead. When they meet resistance, they then deploy all the above arguments, and claim to be victims of exclusion as well. This even goes on when the apple-enthusiasts try to meet them halfway and engage an analysis of how apples and eggplants are different, and why they aren't particularly interested in eggplants.

What's wrong w/ Barbarians of Lemuria system? It's rules light and the characters start off as pretty competent, but that's about it - it's a traditional game in every other way.

No one has said there's anything wrong with BoL, not in this thread as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Arminius;981281Omega, thanks, although I should have written that the obnoxious behavior isn't really "trying to trick people". It's more like if we have a forum about apples, and eggplant enthusiasts constantly join up, wandering into conversations about apple pie recipes to encourage everyone to try baba ganoush instead. When they meet resistance, they then deploy all the above arguments, and claim to be victims of exclusion as well. This even goes on when the apple-enthusiasts try to meet them halfway and engage an analysis of how apples and eggplants are different, and why they aren't particularly interested in eggplants.

Right. But from experience theres usually a faction that is very much out to trick people. The real intent is to subvert the other group and replace them with whatever fetish the infiltrating group is focused on. Once they get the other group to meet half way then they have their hooks in and start taking over.

Today your apple pie site is discussing apples. Tomorrow its discussing eggplant and oh those apples. Never heard of em. Probably another word for eggplant right? Or you'll see a site about apples. And on getting there its eggplant.

Id really love to say I havent seen this happen. It REALLY love to say I havent seen this happen more than once. People so pathetically in need of more of their fix that they have to destroy another group to get it by 'converting' them. Enjoy your eggplant...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;981240In a traditional rpg, what matters is what your character does; in a storygame, what matters is who your character is.

It's basically utilitarianism vs Oprah.

Let's put it this way. You know how in Fury there's that scene where Brad Pitt tries to make the scrawny dweeby guy shoot a Nazi PW? In a storygame, that would be the whole campaign. "It's a moral dilemma! Tell us how you feel! Yes, I just finished Philosophy 101 with the "starving men shipwrecked" story, how could you tell?"

This is why some people still hold a grudge against Gygax for putting orc babies in that module. Fuckin' storygamer!

1) Seems to me that who a PC is and what their abilities are, including their equipment and the situation, also matter. And in storygames, there are also instructions to care about the story quality, story concepts, whose narrative turn it is, and other things that are neither the PC nor the situation determine what happens next. When they take into account who the PC is or what the situation (supposedly) is, it tends to be from a perspective of what makes a good story the other story-conscious elements.

And that's what I find annoying when it starts to creep into a trad game, because I want things to happen for in-universe reasons, with no interference from "story" or "genre" notions. And I complain about it on the Interwebs because it seems to have already creeped into a lot of RPGs, the people who like it don't seem to get that/why it annoys some people, and I feel like if people don't keep complaining, it'll spread faster.

2) From the perspective I just mentioned, worrying about what to do with prisoners, civilians, and orc babies, can actually be interesting too. Who the PCs are, what their morality is, and whether they butcher children or not, etc, is a real practical thing in the game universe, and exists in trad RPGs, and can be interesting and challenging. You can decide to handwave it in one direction or another, but how would that be about narrative or storygaming? Seems to me I'd tend to call that "scope". Like, some wargames might decide to have counters and rules for prisoners and your own wounded and what you do with them, while others would either try to factor the effectiveness-reduction from such situations into the combat results tables abstractly (or pretend it doesn't exist).

You did touch on the storygaming difference though. In a trad game, prisoners might matter because they exist and do things, take time/energy and make noise however you deal with them, there are people who might come to despise you if you butcher them (including some of your friends/allies/patrons), and many other possible in-game-universe situations. The storygaming difference is the part where the GM/players make choices and cause things to exist and happen for reasons of theme or story (and a story game might also ignore prisoners if it's not interesting from a story-perspective - a lot of action fiction seems to do this, either ignoring what happens to fallen bodies, or making it highly important depending on what the author wants to happen next).

I'm with Voros and Jhkim on this one. Aside from the attitudes of some early proponents, I can't see what's the problem with "storygames" (which I understand to be a jargon for Forge games around here). The games per se are fine, even when some specifics are not to my liking. I don't like Polaris and find the phrase structure restrictive but so what? I also don't like railroads and more popular rpgs are full of it, and still I respect those who like it and think it has a place in the hobby.

What's next? Saying drama movies are crap because you guys only like popcorn action? :D

Quote from: Itachi;981314What's next? Saying drama movies are crap because you guys only like popcorn action? :D

That would be the Other Media forum. :D

Quote from: Itachi;981314...

What's next? Saying drama movies are crap because you guys only like popcorn action? :D

Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad. We don't prefer them. The vitriol comes from "the war" where sides were drawn and people tried to hijack the hobby and misled people about what Story Games are. Now that we clearly know what they are, it's no big deal. It's not about the games. It WAS about shitty people being shitty. These days more reasonable people have prevailed. Instead of fighting over what REAL ROLEPLAYING is, we can all make and play the games we want. We can even hang out at the same conventions and play each others' games (if we're so inclined)!

Quote from: trechriron;981316Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad.

Right. Not bad, just different... different than what I generally want when I want an RPG.
The apple vs. eggplant analogy works for me... I might like both, but not together and when I want one I don't want/expect to get the other instead.

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?

Going back to the question the OP posed.

For me it is really simple, people entering the hobby are being taught how to have less fun in a restrictive style of play that seriously limits player options, while they are being told IMO untruthfully that they have more options in a scripted story game railroad. Also IMO immersion is completely destroyed when the player tells the ref what is in the room. If the player can do that, then don't use a ref, just have players and no ref and the most dominant people "win".

One thing a ref does is provide equal opportunity for all players by having a neutral arbitrator that does not give one player an advantage over another by playing favorites, if you play favorites you are not a ref you are something else I don't have a word for. If the players get to take on roles filled normally by the ref, then the dominant ones are free to control the game at the expense of the less dominant. A ref can ask a less vocal player(s) what are you doing and bring that player(s) back into the loop. The ref provides opportunities for every player; however, every player is still responsible for stepping up and grabbing opportunity and making the most of it. Some people want to be wallflowers, that should not make them any less likely to die than anyone else. Being passive can get you killed.

Just for the record, I do think Story Games are bad, (friends don't let friends play Story Games) but I have no problem with you playing them exclusively if that floats your boat. Story Games are IMO not role-playing, they are acting, not that there is anything wrong with acting as you act out your predetermined role to reach the pre-determined conclusion. If you enjoy that, then go have fun.  I really do not have a problem with anyone playing anything they want to. I just think it is a shame that 99% of the rpg world has no idea the rich tapestry that a real old school living campaign game provides.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981333For me it is really simple, people entering the hobby are being taught how to have less fun in a restrictive style of play that seriously limits player options, while they are being told IMO untruthfully that they have more options in a scripted story game railroad.

I'm curious. What games exactly do this "scripted story game railroad" thing? Care to cite some titles?

Quote from: Itachi;981336I'm curious. What games exactly do this "scripted story game railroad" thing? Care to cite some titles?

Some Call of Cthulhu modules pop to mind.

Being a 'railroad' was never my issue with storygames, unless by 'railroad' people mean being pushed to foreground narrative concerns over PC interests... which is something I've experienced in 'trad' games as well (usually pushed by GMs rather than rules).

Yep, I asked because in my experience, popular/mainstream games have more railroad/low player-agency material then Forge-style games. In fact, I can't remember a single Forgite game that's a "scripted railroad" as Crimhthan says.

Quote from: trechriron;981316Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad. We don't prefer them. The vitriol comes from "the war" where sides were drawn and people tried to hijack the hobby and misled people about what Story Games are. Now that we clearly know what they are, it's no big deal. It's not about the games. It WAS about shitty people being shitty. These days more reasonable people have prevailed. Instead of fighting over what REAL ROLEPLAYING is, we can all make and play the games we want. We can even hang out at the same conventions and play each others' games (if we're so inclined)!

Oh, that's cool. And reasonable. ;)

Quote from: Simlasa;981340Some Call of Cthulhu modules pop to mind.

Being a 'railroad' was never my issue with storygames, unless by 'railroad' people mean being pushed to foreground narrative concerns over PC interests... which is something I've experienced in 'trad' games as well (usually by GMs rather than rules).

Yep, I asked because in my experience, popular/mainstream games have more railroad/low player-agency material then Forge-style games. In fact, I can't remember a single Forgite game that's a "scripted railroad" as Crimhthan says.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981333Just for the record, I do think Story Games are bad, (friends don't let friends play Story Games) but I have no problem with you playing them exclusively if that floats your boat. Story Games are IMO not role-playing, they are acting, not that there is anything wrong with acting as you act out your predetermined role to reach the pre-determined conclusion. If you enjoy that, then go have fun.  I really do not have a problem with anyone playing anything they want to. I just think it is a shame that 99% of the rpg world has no idea the rich tapestry that a real old school living campaign game provides.

Hmm, color me confused - a bit...

When I think of Story Games, I don't think of scripted railroads...

I wonder how these conversations would go if people named names instead of using terms that don't have clear meanings, or may have multiple meanings...

These days I think of Story Games as being the types of games discussed over on http://www.story-games.com/forums/ and I'm with the folks that include old school D&D in the realm of what that community means by "story games"...

But I can see how some folks would label games that encourage (or at least the active play community encourages) railroad/scripted play. Games I put in this category would include Call of Cthulhu (based on module play - the rules themselves don't dictate railroads to my remembrance), the various World of Darkness games, and the Dragonlance modules.

Frank

Quote from: Itachi;981336I'm curious. What games exactly do this "scripted story game railroad" thing? Care to cite some titles?

It is the new school play style. Not as much the game as the way it is run. The less DIY and MIY the game is the more likely it is to be played new school and to lend itself to and encourage new school play. Games such as OD&D, Holmes, many of the clones based on those games (I am not going to list them all), Arduin, Gamma World, Traveller do not lend themselves naturally to new school play but encourage old school play, if you read and understand the basics that are spelled out in those games. A huge number of people say they don't railroad and then you read their self-reports of their game and right there in black and white, they document how they railroad. Most adventure modules are by their very nature railroads, but any ref that wants to can alter them and take the railroad out of it and the ref that are able to do that tend to do their own thing and not use adventure modules to begin with.

Quote from: ffilz;981344Hmm, color me confused - a bit...

When I think of Story Games, I don't think of scripted railroads...

I wonder how these conversations would go if people named names instead of using terms that don't have clear meanings, or may have multiple meanings...

These days I think of Story Games as being the types of games discussed over on http://www.story-games.com/forums/ and I'm with the folks that include old school D&D in the realm of what that community means by "story games"...

But I can see how some folks would label games that encourage (or at least the active play community encourages) railroad/scripted play. Games I put in this category would include Call of Cthulhu (based on module play - the rules themselves don't dictate railroads to my remembrance), the various World of Darkness games, and the Dragonlance modules.

Frank

IMO old school D&D is as far from a story game as it is possible to get. A story game is where the story exists before any play occurs and the player has a role to fill to get to a predetermined endpoint. An old school D&D game is where no story exists and their is no predetermined endpoint, you start with a sandbox and a min of a handful of hooks up to hundreds of hooks (the players can visit as many taverns as they want looking for the rumor or news that excites them or set out to someplace of their choosing and see what comes up), story is created as the players decide and act, the living campaign continues around them and interacts with them and the ref responds to the players decisions and actions and to the living campaign, the story exists and can be told once play ends and not until play ends.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981333Story Games are IMO not role-playing, they are acting, not that there is anything wrong with acting as you act out your predetermined role to reach the pre-determined conclusion. If you enjoy that, then go have fun.  I really do not have a problem with anyone playing anything they want to. I just think it is a shame that 99% of the rpg world has no idea the rich tapestry that a real old school living campaign game provides.

Like Itachi, I'm confused about what story games you're picturing here.

I've been running a weekly semi-sandbox D&D5 game for a while, but I also regularly play games like Fiasco, Microscope, The Play's the Thing, and others. None of what I think of as story games have a predetermined conclusion.

Quote from: Simlasa;981340Some Call of Cthulhu modules pop to mind.

Being a 'railroad' was never my issue with storygames, unless by 'railroad' people mean being pushed to foreground narrative concerns over PC interests... which is something I've experienced in 'trad' games as well (usually by GMs rather than rules).

I think especially of the trend in modules set by Shadowrun and made even more explicit in Deadlands and Torg, where the module has a predefined storyline and is even broken into explicit acts and/or scenes.

However, there is a long history of linear modules. Some but not all of the old tournament modules for D&D were linear. The Dragonlance modules started having linear storylines that coordinated with the novels, which was continued with later Ravenloft modules (even though the original Ravenloft & Ravenloft II modules were non-linear).

Quote from: Skarg;9813081) Seems to me that who a PC is and what their abilities are, including their equipment and the situation, also matter. And in storygames, there are also instructions to care about the story quality, story concepts, whose narrative turn it is, and other things that are neither the PC nor the situation determine what happens next. When they take into account who the PC is or what the situation (supposedly) is, it tends to be from a perspective of what makes a good story the other story-conscious elements.

And that's what I find annoying when it starts to creep into a trad game, because I want things to happen for in-universe reasons, with no interference from "story" or "genre" notions. And I complain about it on the Interwebs because it seems to have already creeped into a lot of RPGs, the people who like it don't seem to get that/why it annoys some people, and I feel like if people don't keep complaining, it'll spread faster.

2) From the perspective I just mentioned, worrying about what to do with prisoners, civilians, and orc babies, can actually be interesting too. Who the PCs are, what their morality is, and whether they butcher children or not, etc, is a real practical thing in the game universe, and exists in trad RPGs, and can be interesting and challenging. You can decide to handwave it in one direction or another, but how would that be about narrative or storygaming? Seems to me I'd tend to call that "scope". Like, some wargames might decide to have counters and rules for prisoners and your own wounded and what you do with them, while others would either try to factor the effectiveness-reduction from such situations into the combat results tables abstractly (or pretend it doesn't exist).

You did touch on the storygaming difference though. In a trad game, prisoners might matter because they exist and do things, take time/energy and make noise however you deal with them, there are people who might come to despise you if you butcher them (including some of your friends/allies/patrons), and many other possible in-game-universe situations. The storygaming difference is the part where the GM/players make choices and cause things to exist and happen for reasons of theme or story (and a story game might also ignore prisoners if it's not interesting from a story-perspective - a lot of action fiction seems to do this, either ignoring what happens to fallen bodies, or making it highly important depending on what the author wants to happen next).

I don't think you're having badwrongfun but there are allot of people on this site with very different tastes from my own but I think yours are some of the most distant along one axis so I find them fascinating.

Virtually any module for any game will be linear or "railroaded" to some extent because otherwise the possible range of actions becomes too large to describe.  Dave Arneson used to call this "One True Way vs Tree of Life" design.

Quote from: trechriron;981316Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad. We don't prefer them. The vitriol comes from "the war" where sides were drawn and people tried to hijack the hobby and misled people about what Story Games are. Now that we clearly know what they are, it's no big deal. It's not about the games. It WAS about shitty people being shitty. These days more reasonable people have prevailed. Instead of fighting over what REAL ROLEPLAYING is, we can all make and play the games we want. We can even hang out at the same conventions and play each others' games (if we're so inclined)!

Well said and it explains how a newbie stumbling blindly into the thick of it could be attacked as one of the deserved shitty. Makes a lot of sense.

Look no further than the modules published for the popular FFG Star Wars game for this same sort of linear approach. I dont take issue with it, Ive used these sort of adventures (or versions of them) on and off for years and yep...sometimes had to pack the group on the ole choo-choo now and then to reach the climax but then there were plenty of games the contrary. Theres room for both I believe. I never saw it as a problem to bounce back and forth. As far as StoryGames go - again they can be a lot of fun, and so can a more realistic immersive RP - just a different experience. I call them both Roleplaying by the way because... well the players are playing a role no matter how you look at it. But then again I RP solo sometimes too, and have caught quite a bit of crap about that as well!

Story Game vs. Traditional RPG.

There's always a lot of confusion about what constitutes a Story Game or Traditional Game. I can't speak for everyone, but I think we have a pretty good handle on it here in the separation of the forums.

Traditional RPG: A game where the players take on roles and the GM/DM portrays the world/NPCs. Story falls out of play. The rules don't include or should not include ways to create/manipulate "the story". Many meta-game mechanics try to meld Story and Trad RPGs with plot points, etc. but if you can easily ignore those elements, many who prefer Trad RPGs can play the game without much fuss.

Story Game: A game where all participants are playing to create a story. Elements often focus on editing or manipulating the plot, inserting new ideas, interacting with the world outside the scope of the characters.

Railroads are an element of adventure design in Trad RPGs. Most Story Games are lighter on the rules, more free-form on the interaction (to get out of the way of story creation). Not all of course. Powered by the Apocalypse games for example, include some heavier procedure than most Story Games.  This is my opinion/observation, but Railroading is most often associated with adventures/modules where there is only one real choice.

Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

Quote from: Itachi;981360Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

I prefer the name "Collaborative Story telling game" but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

Quote from: Itachi;981360Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

That's ridiculous. It's used in ignorance by a few very, very old-school gamers (like Chrimhthan) but it's been common usage for years. The mistake that people make is confusing railroads (which--so I hear--were refined to the point of art by the Storyteller system) with story-games.

There seems practically to be a type of Internet Law at work, where any definition or attempt to refine concepts will eventually be declared meaningless by the very people who actively muddied the waters. Cf: immersion, sandbox, railroad. The list goes on, apparently.

Quote from: Skarg;981308worrying about what to do with prisoners, civilians, and orc babies, can actually be interesting too. Who the PCs are, what their morality is, and whether they butcher children or not, etc, is a real practical thing in the game universe, and exists in trad RPGs, and can be interesting and challenging.

Yes. It can be. It might be. But it doesn't have to be. And that's one way a traditional rpg differs from a storygame.

In a traditional game, the moral choices can be significant if the individual player wants them to be. In a storygame, the moral choices are significant whether the player wants them to be or not.

In a traditional game, the moral choices may be significant in their in-universe effects. For example, if you kill prisoners and a normally-merciful enemy knows that, then when you're a prisoner they won't be so merciful. But if the enemy doesn't know then they treat you mercifully.

A storygame will have your killing of prisoners have effects on you regardless of whether anyone else knows about it. And yes, the example of Call of Cthulhu is relevant, as the Sanity mechanic is the beginnings of a storygame. In AD&D1e or the like if you see something horrible you are free to decide it freaks you out, excites you, or you're indifferent to it - as you wish. In Cthulhu it's up to the dice, but see enough horrible shit and it will eventually make your character go mad.

Since Cthulhu's Sanity mechanic is the beginnings of a storygame, it's no surprise that so many of its modules are so railroady. And this makes sense, since the roots of the game are in the stories, where a character has some encounter with something horrible, they go mad, die, or manage to defeat it, or all three - and that's the end of the story, they don't go on to encounter some different horrible thing later. It's about playing a character in a CoC story. So naturally it has storygame elements, and developed them long before anyone thought to call it a storygame.

So this is another storygame/trad game difference: limited play. A traditional game like AD&D1e or Traveller has no limit to play. You can have many, many adventures, and halfway through an adventure abandon it and go and do something else. In a storygame, there's a story to go through, with or without a predetermined end, and that's that. There are no storygame hexcrawl sandboxes.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981350Virtually any module for any game will be linear or "railroaded" to some extent because otherwise the possible range of actions becomes too large to describe.  Dave Arneson used to call this "One True Way vs Tree of Life" design.

So you players opting to explore Castle Greyhawk was a railroad?

Quote from: Itachi;981360Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

No. It is not useless. I make all the rules and you must follow them because #reasons.

Quote from: Itachi;981360Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

How are you supposed to stigmatize Badwrongfun Gamers if you don't have a convenient box to put them in?

Quote from: Krimson;981393How are you supposed to stigmatize Badwrongfun Gamers if you don't have a convenient box to put them in?

"Use Disassociated mechanics? That's a day in the Box."

"Put Narrative or story elements ahead of virtual world simulation? That's a week in the Box."

"Refer genre or story goals as limitation of character options? Oh, Lawd, get comfortable, boy, y'all gon' be the Box for awhile, son."

Quote from: Omega;981386So you players opting to explore Castle Greyhawk was a railroad?

What is your native language?  Because I can't figure how you got there from here.

Quote from: Voros;981237Would you say it is more pre-determined than the fact that due to the mechanics (and intent of the designers) most CoC adventures or campaigns will end in either madness or death?

I pretty familiar with Call of Cthulhu. Most adventures don't end in madness or death. The campaigns I've read, run, and played typically don't end that way for all the characters, although in a multi-part, globe spanning campaign one should expect to lose some characters. Much like the players as a group should expect to lose some PCs in an OD&D campaign.

Quote from: Arminius;981239

• GMing advice that calls for dramatic manipulation within and across scenarios

Could you give an example or two. I'm not sure what you mean by dramatic manipulation.

Quote from: Voros;981241It's fine to say it's not your bag or you simply dislike the mechanic but it is pretty pointless to criticize something for not being what you expected, any game should be judged on how well it does what it sets out to do not what you think it should be doing.

No just like every other form of entertainment, entertainment is also judged on whether or not I enjoy it (or think that I might enjoy it).

QuoteIn terms of a mechanics effect on immersion, I think that is completely subjective and an unlikely complaint from someone who hasn't been playing RPGs for years. We now take the mechanics of trad RPGs as not immersion breaking but for newbies I think all mechanics have that effect until you become use to them.

Unfamiliar mechanics are somewhat distracting. That's different than being contra-immersive. Stepping out of my character's point of view to consider and decide on something that has nothing to do with what my character is doing or thinking is always going to be contra-immersive. How much that bothers any particular player is subjective. The fact that those actions are disconnected from what the character knows, thinks, and does is not subjective.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;981381Since Cthulhu's Sanity mechanic is the beginnings of a storygame, it's no surprise that so many of its modules are so railroady.

Sanity is no more untraditional than are hit points or charm person spells.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981350Virtually any module for any game will be linear or "railroaded" to some extent because otherwise the possible range of actions becomes too large to describe.  Dave Arneson used to call this "One True Way vs Tree of Life" design.

You don't mean this module do you?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1236[/ATTACH]
:p

I think you've confused a finite listing of choices with a linear railroad. Every game description is finite. Ergo every game can only have a finite listing of anything. But so long as the GM is does not restrict themselves to only what is written on the page a module need not be linear nor a railroad.

In addition, a single, linear path is not the only possible module design. One can (and to my mind really should) have a path that includes branched events and events in series rather than forcing all events to occur in parallel.

Moreover, at any point in time any tree (phylogenetic tree, Tree of Life, or fricking Yggdrasil) is also finite, i.e. has only a finite number of roots and branches. Not sure what Dave Arneson mean by Tree of Life though. A quick search turned up a bunch of stuff that was not about RPGs.

The dramatic manipulation I'm thinking of inside scenarios is the exhortation to "Escalate! Escalate! Escalate!" In other words, the GM is supposed to steer the action, and use any wiggle room available in NPC decisions, timing of off-screen events, etc., to push the game to a dramatic crisis.

Across scenarios, the GM is encouraged to look at the moral statements made by the PCs' actions and develop new scenarios to challenge them. For example if in one game a player decides to support the idea of parental authority as the foundation of social order in the frontier--say, forcing a runaway child to go back home--then in later scenarios the GM should have situations where parents are doing more and more tyrannical and messed up things, until the PC discovers the limits of their principle (usually ending in violence).

Quote from: Bren;981402Sanity is no more untraditional than are hit points or charm person spells..

I didn't say it was "not traditional", I said it was the seed that grew into the weed of storygames. Game mechanics influence but do not determine play.

Contend with what I actually said, not some other shit you made up. If I wanted that I could just talk politics somewhere.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;981407I didn't say it was "not traditional", I said it was the seed that grew into the weed of storygames. Game mechanics influence but do not determine play.

Sanity mechanics were no more the seed of storygames than was the the Bravery stat in first edition Boot Hill or the charm person spell in OD&D. Sanity is simply mental hit points with the add on of a critical hit table of temporary insanities. But by all means go talk politics somewhere.

Quote from: Arminius;981406The dramatic manipulation I'm thinking of inside scenarios is the exhortation to "Escalate! Escalate! Escalate!" In other words, the GM is supposed to steer the action, and use any wiggle room available in NPC decisions, timing of off-screen events, etc., to push the game to a dramatic crisis.

Across scenarios, the GM is encouraged to look at the moral statements made by the PCs' actions and develop new scenarios to challenge them. For example if in one game a player decides to support the idea of parental authority as the foundation of social order in the frontier--say, forcing a runaway child to go back home--then in later scenarios the GM should have situations where parents are doing more and more tyrannical and messed up things, until the PC discovers the limits of their principle (usually ending in violence).

Thanks that clarifies. It sounds like some annoyingly dickish GM advice I've read somewhere.

Quote from: Bren;981402I pretty familiar with Call of Cthulhu. Most adventures don't end in madness or death. The campaigns I've read, run, and played typically don't end that way for all the characters, although in a multi-part, globe spanning campaign one should expect to lose some characters. Much like the players as a group should expect to lose some PCs in an OD&D campaign.

Could you give an example or two. I'm not sure what you mean by dramatic manipulation.

I've played and ran a lot of CoC and it always ended in madness or death. That was one of the pleasures of CoC after D&D where many people tended to take their character deaths pretty seriously. I don't think any of us were too interested in retiring in semi-peace though and our games had a strong strain of black humour. Our groups also tended to be smaller, 2-3 actual PCs. Of course the adventures had throughlines and intended endings but few of our investigators lasted more than 2-3 sessions.

I didn't use the term dramatic manipulation you must be confusing my post with someone else.

Quote from: Bren;981402No just like every other form of entertainment, entertainment is also judged on whether or not I enjoy it (or think that I might enjoy it).

On a personal level enjoyment is obviously important but since others enjoy what you might not it is not by any measure an 'objective' measurement of quality. A classic misjudgement is also to project negative assumptions onto those who like what you dislike (they are vulgar, unsophisticated or pretentious and phony).

@Kyle
I think to claim the sanity mechanic is the start of storygames is a big stretch, it's like seeing Reds under the bed, once you start looking...

In terms of the dreaded 'railroad':

Obviously one of the advantages of dungeons is that they are limited in scope and easier to handle for DMs as it narrows the range of options for the PCs compared to the wilderness or especially cities. Pretty sure I read a quote by Arneson to that effect, will see if I can dig it up.

Quote from: Voros;981411I've played and ran a lot of CoC and it always ended in madness or death.

My experiences differ.

QuoteI didn't use the term dramatic manipulation you must be confusing my post with someone elses.

I'm not confused. At least not about that. The question was addressed to Arminius. He used the term and has subsequently explained it.

Quote from: Bren;981412My experiences differ.

I am obviously more hardcore than you. :D

The rate of death in Call of Cthulhu, whenever I've run it, is normally proportional to the number of new players transferring over from an exclusive diet of playing D&D. The rate of insanity is, accordingly, inverse to this as more experienced players make their characters last longer while their sanity erodes.

It may depend upon GMing styles and scenario choice perhaps, but the classic Masks of Nyarlathotep is certainly a grind house. I'd also add that The Haunting, arguably the most played Call of Cthulhu of all, almost always results in some character death.

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: TrippyHippy;981425The rate of death in Call of Cthulhu, whenever I've run it, is normally proportional to the number of new players transferring over from an exclusive diet of playing D&D...

I think this is very true.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495Where do you think the apparent hatred for story gaming by the pure sandbox guys comes from and for that matter, visa versa?

https://youtu.be/jqDQEm2A6mU?t=7m7s

This session had a long-ass intro. Then it had an even longer-ass narration after that. The GM was obviously trying to tell his story, but the players just wanted to kill stuff, or talk out of character mostly, I think. He also narrates what the players are doing and what they feel, etc. Hand of God stuff, which goes against sand-boxing.

I prefer narration to be no more than a paragraph. Mostly just a couple sentences here and there.

Quote from: Nexus;981397"Use Disassociated mechanics? That's a day in the Box."

"Put Narrative or story elements ahead of virtual world simulation? That's a week in the Box."

"Refer genre or story goals as limitation of character options? Oh, Lawd, get comfortable, boy, y'all gon' be the Box for awhile, son."

"Express an opinion counter to a narrative player's preferences, you're a prison guard (or insert persecutor metaphor of choice)". :rolleyes:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981434I see where your confusion has come from: You're thinking of "story" as the thing which a GM preps and then needs to railroad the players through. And, therefore, you're thinking that a "story game" must be a game where the GM has such a story.

Exactly that IMO is what a "story game" is.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981434But that's not what "story game" or "storytelling game" means in general usage. Storytelling games feature narrative control mechanics which either determine who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk. Generally speaking it's impossible for a storytelling game to have the kind "predetermined story" that you're talking about because their mechanics are usually explicitly about splitting narrative control between the players, making it impossible for any single player (or GM) to enforce a predetermined story.

This I would not call a "story game," I would call this a bunch of people collaborating on a bad novel that could never be published and it is not impossible for a single player to force an end result, because what you are describing is a "game" where the dominant personality always gets his way because there is no one to stop him(or her). In other words it operates like Congress, and that does not sound like fun to me.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981434Your misunderstanding is even more understandable in this thread because rgrove0172 claimed in the first post that "narrative elements", story games, and railroading were all the same thing. This is because rgrove0172 and confused and confusing individual. ("Narrative elements", as far as I can tell, isn't even a widely recognized term in RPG discussions and I can only really guess at what rgrove0172 might have been talking about.)

"Narrative element" = anytime someone speaks = meaningless term.

Quote from: CRKrueger;981456"Express an opinion counter to a narrative player's preferences, you're a prison guard (or insert persecutor metaphor of choice)". :rolleyes:

"Yes'ah. Boss." :D

Quote from: Krimson;981393How are you supposed to stigmatize Badwrongfun Gamers if you don't have a convenient box to put them in?

There is a tendency to lump people under the broad umbrella "storygamer" if your preferences differ from the board standard. I guess that's part of human nature but the hostility is oddly intense. Maybe it goes the other way as well. But it doesn't seem to be knee jerk and intense on the boards I've been compared to the rpgsite and even absent entirely.

Its not just  comparing Apples to Eggplants, there's people that seem pissed off that the other exists or that "too many" people like it, that apples aren't eggplants (or vice versa), or that want convince others that not only does their preferred food taste good but that the other is poisonous.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;981084That article was some of the most pretentious twaddle I've ever read.

The dude now is mad that his thread was closed on story-games for being flamebait, but he doesn't have the cojones to come out and say that.

http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/21241/my-worries-about-the-indie-community

On retrospect, I shouldn't have said it was rightly closed.

Quote from: Voros;981414I am obviously more hardcore than you. :D

As are, judging by their comments, a lot of people in this thread. I can live with that. :)

Quote from: TrippyHippy;981425I'd also add that The Haunting, arguably the most played Call of Cthulhu of all, almost always results in some character death.

Yes that is a deadly in the short run scenario. Its one of the few scenarios I've run for multiple groups. Although no one ever went insane, two out of three times a PC died.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981459Exactly that IMO is what a "story game" is.

Your definition is almost uniquely yours which is going to cause confusion when you try to communicate with other people.

The funny thing about all this, and I say this as someone who did not even know "Story Games" were a thing until a couple months ago, and who only had a vague notion that the "OSR" was anything more than "old versions of D&D tarted up with better-organized manuals," is that these pretentious blowhards are making it sound like "the industry" has left D&D behind when in fact D&D and Pathfinder together comprise the lion's share of this teeny, tiny, $35m industry in terms of sales. Add in the various 3rd-party supplements, toss in the similar-but-not-quite D&D games like 13th Age, and you've got all these story games fighting over something like $5m in revenue, maybe less.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;981475The funny thing about all this, and I say this as someone who did not even know "Story Games" were a thing until a couple months ago, and who only had a vague notion that the "OSR" was anything more than "old versions of D&D tarted up with better-organized manuals," is that these pretentious blowhards are making it sound like "the industry" has left D&D behind when in fact D&D and Pathfinder together comprise the lion's share of this teeny, tiny, $35m industry in terms of sales. Add in the various 3rd-party supplements, toss in the similar-but-not-quite D&D games like 13th Age, and you've got all these story games fighting over something like $5m in revenue, maybe less.

To the extent that they are fighting over revenue, they are trying to get a bigger share of the industry. That is the motivation for discounting the trad games. Of course, they can argue that the art form has left traditional games behind and no one can really refute them because that is a matter of definitions and movable goal-posts.

Before I retired, I was in marketing and our discussions would sometimes touch on making the pie bigger but usually we talked about getting a bigger slice, even though we were the industry leader. Now I am marketing a crunchy trad RPG and expect to become a dozenairre soon.

----------------------------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981477To the extent that they are fighting over revenue, they are trying to get a bigger share of the industry. That is the motivation for discounting the trad games. Of course, they can argue that the art form has left traditional games behind and no one can really refute them because that is a matter of definitions and movable goal-posts.

Before I retired, I was in marketing and our discussions would sometimes touch on making the pie bigger but usually we talked about getting a bigger slice, even though we were the industry leader. Now I am marketing a crunchy trad RPG and expect to become a dozenairre soon.

----------------------------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

I don't believe that it's about revenue but it's a popularity contest for sure. I know that it burns some of them that people just aren't interested in their form of playing. There are others who think that new design will get the mainstream again like D&D did way back and they may see the lack of "evolution" as an obstacle to adoption.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981434Your misunderstanding is even more understandable in this thread because rgrove0172 claimed in the first post that "narrative elements", story games, and railroading were all the same thing. This is because rgrove0172 and confused and confusing individual. ("Narrative elements", as far as I can tell, isn't even a widely recognized term in RPG discussions and I can only really guess at what rgrove0172 might have been talking about.)

Not to put words in rgrove0172's mouth, I think he means story elements and concepts like organizing games into scenes, chapters, episodes and the like, extensive (in some opinions narration and description) and making GMing choices driven by what would make the story (as in game O events) more interesting, emotional, exciting, entertaining, fun ror in genre rather than in setting logic and the ideal of virtual world simulation. Somethings that are called Illusionism for some included. I could be way off base, of course or there may be more.  
[/QUOTE]

QuoteI'm not really seeing it. What early storytelling games do you see being influenced by CoC's sanity mechanics, exactly?

I'd see them more as precursor to mechanics like GURPS Fright Checks, Hero System's PRE attacks, personally. But some Story games do track a characters mental/emotional/moral deterioration AIU, but so do some Traditional games.

Quote from: Bren;981474Your definition is almost uniquely yours which is going to cause confusion when you try to communicate with other people.

In fairness, this isn't an unusual issue.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;981475The funny thing about all this, and I say this as someone who did not even know "Story Games" were a thing until a couple months ago, and who only had a vague notion that the "OSR" was anything more than "old versions of D&D tarted up with better-organized manuals," is that these pretentious blowhards are making it sound like "the industry" has left D&D behind when in fact D&D and Pathfinder together comprise the lion's share of this teeny, tiny, $35m industry in terms of sales. Add in the various 3rd-party supplements, toss in the similar-but-not-quite D&D games like 13th Age, and you've got all these story games fighting over something like $5m in revenue, maybe less.

That's another thing that puzzles me about hostility. Some Storygame folks were assholes (and I guess some still are). Trad games won, are winning and continue to win. Sure there is some adoption of "narrative" elements in some traditional games. IME, some of the things allot of people seem to hate here were part of the GMing advice when I started. But Fiasco and Slasher Flick aren't any threat to D and D and barring some weird occurrence probably never will me.

Quote from: Itachi;981360Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

Well, telling people not to do something works so well :p, but you did say suggest, not demand, so go ahead. As to useless, it appears to be less than useless, since we have people with genuine contradictory beliefs about what is in story games.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;981475The funny thing about all this, and I say this as someone who did not even know "Story Games" were a thing until a couple months ago, and who only had a vague notion that the "OSR" was anything more than "old versions of D&D tarted up with better-organized manuals," is that these pretentious blowhards are making it sound like "the industry" has left D&D behind when in fact D&D and Pathfinder together comprise the lion's share of this teeny, tiny, $35m industry in terms of sales. Add in the various 3rd-party supplements, toss in the similar-but-not-quite D&D games like 13th Age, and you've got all these story games fighting over something like $5m in revenue, maybe less.

In the same boat, here. Other than 'that thing a lot of people here hate,' I don't know what the Forge is (I mean technically, I know it is a website popular around 2000 or so), I don't know who these major players are. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what these games actually are (both in terms of what games qualify, but what is in them that makes them story games).

The irony.

The Dr Who initiative system is one of the most constricting narrative/story design elements in recent years (whether you like the idea or not) and the self proclaimed arch nemesis of 'The Swine' claims authorship of it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;981486In the same boat, here. Other than 'that thing a lot of people here hate,' I don't know what the Forge is (I mean technically, I know it is a website popular around 2000 or so), I don't know who these major players are. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what these games actually are (both in terms of what games qualify, but what is in them that makes them story games).

I happen to be in the same camp as at least some other "story gamers" (taking the meaning for story gamers as those who find the discussions in storygames.com relevant to their gaming) who include D&D as a story game...

In fact, some of the techniques in some story games are actually reaching back across the era of World of Darkness/Storyteller into the era of sandbox D&D, finding techniques that worked, and describing them differently.

On the other hand Ron Edwards did a lot of damage with his brain damage crusade (though which was actually aimed at the type of railroady "the GM has a story to tell gosh darn it" play that the folks here who are anti-story game are against).

On another hand, I don't play many of the "story games" or "forge" games... But I do hope to play Burning Wheel more in the future and would even play Dogs in the Vinyard again.

Frank

Inclusion of D&D as a story game strikes me as either a distinction without a difference (what RPG isn't a story game, then?), or parochial interpretation (D&D can be played as a story-game if you apply certain conventions, like grafting the GMing section from DitV or Sorcerer/Sorcerer & Sword, structuring the game in scenes, improv GMing with no presumption of pre-existing facts in the world, and players given unquestioned input to scenes and scenarios as sort-of co-GMs). Or it's a motte-and-baily argument that only gets trotted out as a defense against characterizing story-games, then shelved for all other purposes.

Quote from: Itachi;981360Lol may I suggest we stop using the term "story-games"? Because at this point it's useless.

What 'we' are you talking about? The writers who describe their own games as story games? The forum that calls itself story-games.com? Are these people deluded or mistaken about their own products and proclivities?

Quote from: Arminius;981494Inclusion of D&D as a story game strikes me as either a distinction without a difference (what RPG isn't a story game, then?) . . .

That's the point, I think.

Quote from: Arminius;981494. . . structuring the game in scenes . . .

Hell, Doug-Fucking-Niles did that in the 1e AD&D DSG.

Quote from: Arminius;981494Or it's a motte-and-baily argument that only gets trotted out as a defense against characterizing story-games, then shelved for all other purposes.

[Landa] That's a bingo! [/Landa]

I agree that the term "story games" is often used inconsistently. It sometimes is used inclusively of all RPGs whether traditional or non-traditional. This is used internally - such as during discussions of D&D and other traditional RPGs on the story-games.com forum, which happen regularly.

More often, it is used to refer to only non-traditional games ranging from Apocalypse World to Fiasco and more.

There is no conspiracy in this. It's just that different people use the term differently. I think that the latter usage is more common, and would prefer people standardize on that. But it's hard to police people saying that.

Dave Arneson used "Tree of Life" to refer to a decision tree because he'd never heard the term decision tree.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981511Dave Arneson used "Tree of Life" to refer to a decision tree because he'd never heard the term decision tree.

Thanks.

I'm fond of decision trees. (I still miss my now expired free student copy of the Precision Tree add on for Excel.) A decision tree is a better model for designing a scenario than a simple linear series of scenes.

re: What is a story game. So long as the definitions are reasonably clear to any educated, reasonable person I think discussions would be more productive if people who describe their own games as story games got to define their term. And by the same token these discussions would be more productive if people who value in character, first person immersion were allowed to define what they mean by immersion.

Quote from: Bren;981474Your definition is almost uniquely yours which is going to cause confusion when you try to communicate with other people.

OK well now I know it has a new definition somewhere along the line. You remember the little books that would guide you from page to page.  Back when those were out that I would have called a story game. You got your choice of railroads in those little books. I remember looking at one once and tossing it down in disgust.

Justin defined storygames for me this way

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981434But that's not what "story game" or "storytelling game" means in general usage. Storytelling games feature narrative control mechanics which either determine who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk. Generally speaking it's impossible for a storytelling game to have the kind "predetermined story" that you're talking about because their mechanics are usually explicitly about splitting narrative control between the players, making it impossible for any single player (or GM) to enforce a predetermined story.

Are you using that definition ffliz or some other definition?

You said

Quote from: ffilz;981490I happen to be in the same camp as at least some other "story gamers" (taking the meaning for story gamers as those who find the discussions in storygames.com relevant to their gaming) who include D&D as a story game...

In fact, some of the techniques in some story games are actually reaching back across the era of World of Darkness/Storyteller into the era of sandbox D&D, finding techniques that worked, and describing them differently.

Now are you talking D&D as in 3E and later or as you saying that Old School D&D is a story game? Because if you are using Justin's definition and talking OD&D I do not understand where you are coming from since I do not see anything in that definition that is even remotely compatible with a sandbox game.

Quote from: ffilz;981490On the other hand Ron Edwards did a lot of damage with his brain damage crusade (though which was actually aimed at the type of railroady "the GM has a story to tell gosh darn it" play that the folks here who are anti-story game are against).

Which is kind of funny in way, since he did not parse it that way, everything I read he was ranting about OD&D and old school play as a great evil, but old school is incompatible with any type of railroad. If he had ranted against railroaded gameing and recognized that is not related in any way to old school play he might have gotten a different response from the DIY/MIY folks.

Quote from: ffilz;981490(taking the meaning for story gamers as those who find the discussions in storygames.com relevant to their gaming.

I looked at that forum a long time ago and decided after reading some of it that they are anti-anything I like in playing OD&D.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981511Dave Arneson used "Tree of Life" to refer to a decision tree because he'd never heard the term decision tree.

That is the best way to describe a decision tree I have ever heard.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981477To the extent that they are fighting over revenue, they are trying to get a bigger share of the industry. That is the motivation for discounting the trad games. Of course, they can argue that the art form has left traditional games behind and no one can really refute them because that is a matter of definitions and movable goal-posts.

Before I retired, I was in marketing and our discussions would sometimes touch on making the pie bigger but usually we talked about getting a bigger slice, even though we were the industry leader. Now I am marketing a crunchy trad RPG and expect to become a dozenairre soon.

Someone linked an article in one of these threads where some story-gamer was whining about the OSR because, as he saw it, so-called "story games" are "new technology" that have eclipsed D&D and made it obsolete. People who spend a lot of time online (myself included) need to beware of the echo chamber effect, where participating in a forum makes something seem like a much bigger deal than it is.

I guess on these story-gamers' forums, it feels like D&D is dead and busted, because everyone on the forum is playing something else. You can find 3.x-oriented forums where the participants are talking about how D&D is "dying" because "nobody" is playing 5e. What we're really talking about is a tiny group of people who made big waves in a slightly less tiny group of people online...but ultimately, they're really not a big deal.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981532Justin defined storygames for me this way

Are you using that definition ffliz or some other definition?

You said

Now are you talking D&D as in 3E and later or as you saying that Old School D&D is a story game? Because if you are using Justin's definition and talking OD&D I do not understand where you are coming from since I do not see anything in that definition that is even remotely compatible with a sandbox game.

Which is kind of funny in way, since he did not parse it that way, everything I read he was ranting about OD&D and old school play as a great evil, but old school is incompatible with any type of railroad. If he had ranted against railroaded gameing and recognized that is not related in any way to old school play he might have gotten a different response from the DIY/MIY folks.

 I looked at that forum a long time ago and decided after reading some of it that they are anti-anything I like in playing OD&D.

Hmm, I hate only having one level of quotes...

That would not be my definition, and honestly, my definition of story game would include all RPGs and probably more games... But I've always appreciated that story-games.com IS inclusive of old school D&D play. One poster I always follow is playing old school D&D (well, I think they use Lamentations of the Flame Princess). Probably not exactly the same way we played back in the 70s, but in much the same spirit. Now I know not all who frequent that site would include old school D&D in story games, but I've always felt the admins are friendly.

As to what Ron Edwards said in his brain damage, I read it as coming from his frustration with what World of Darkness and other very scripted/railroaded games did to the hobby. My impression was that he in fact was supportive of old school D&D (separately, there was the Fantasy Heartbreaker deal, but that was more about designers of games he labeled as such putting their heart into something that didn't offer enough new to do well enough in the marketplace to break even, and more the shame, the new ideas they did have in their game got lost as a result of being buried in this otherwise D&D ripoff). The publishing opportunities we have today make it much more possible to publish such a game and get enough attention to justify the investment in money and time. In any case, the brain damage post did a lot of damage to the Forge community and the games that came out of it.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;981539As to what Ron Edwards said in his brain damage, I read it as coming from his frustration with what World of Darkness and other very scripted/railroaded games did to the hobby.

It was a specific attack on Vampire: The Masquerade which, he argued, caused physical brain damage due to the 'incoherence' of it's design, and was akin to child abuse.

His frustration was largely with 'brain damaged' Vampire players who didn't appreciate that his games were so much better.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981532Which is kind of funny in way, since he did not parse it that way, everything I read he was ranting about OD&D and old school play as a great evil...

No he wasn't. He was ranting about White Wolf '90s Railroading as a great evil, as several people have told you.

I believe this is the source, from 2006  - http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0 - he starts off quoting himself saying:

If you say "creative social interaction" instead of "walking," in that paragraph, then that's what early-to-mid 1990s role-playing procedures concerning so-called "storytelling" were like - Vampire leading the pack, as well as a number of other offspring of a particular application of Champions. You've seen these role-playing experiences too, Jesse. You know all about the social and creative equivalents [of dealing with a badly-designed prosthetic -RE.

Then

All that is the foundation for my point: that the routine human capacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "storytelling role-playing" as promulgated through many role-playing games of a specific type. This type is only one game in terms of procedures, but it's represented across several dozens of titles and about fifteen to twenty years, peaking about ten years ago. Think of it as a "way" to role-play rather than any single title.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981529OK well now I know it has a new definition somewhere along the line.

And knowing is half the battle...:D

QuoteYou remember the little books that would guide you from page to page.  Back when those were out that I would have called a story game. You got your choice of railroads in those little books. I remember looking at one once and tossing it down in disgust.

I must have had lower expectations for those books. They remind me a bit of the solitaire board games (SPI, Avalon Hill, etc.) and solo scenarios for a multi-player games from back to the 1970s. They were no where near as much fun as actually playing against another person, but they were more fun than watching Happy Days or Laverne and Shirley on the TV and they did help learn the wargame rules. Similarly I've seen a few of those numbered paragraph branching solo adventures that were better than a sharp stick in the eye as a way to help new players learn a new system. WEG D6 had one or two of those. I think I remember seeing some for Runequest and Call of Cthulhu back in the 1980s. Alone Against the Wendigo was mildly fun and it was amusing to see how L.C. Nadelmann (your character) was going to get borked this time.

Spoiler

(https://gamebooks.org/gallery/coc_aatw.jpg)

Quote from: TrippyHippy;981540It was a specific attack on Vampire: The Masquerade which, he argued, caused physical brain damage due to the 'incoherence' of it's design, and was akin to child abuse.

His frustration was largely with 'brain damaged' Vampire players who didn't appreciate that his games were so much better.

That definitely was a brain fart on his part and as far as I know he never backed down from his position. I remember reading a thread where someone was trying to defend him by reinterpreting the words, and Ron figuratively smacked him down. I respect the integrity of that, even though the position is patently moronic.

By the way, does anyone know if self-publishing in the OSR predates the Forgite self-publishing?

Quote from: Crimhthan;981532Which is kind of funny in way, since he did not parse it that way, everything I read he was ranting about OD&D and old school play as a great evil, but old school is incompatible with any type of railroad. If he had ranted against railroaded gameing and recognized that is not related in any way to old school play he might have gotten a different response from the DIY/MIY folks.

I'm certainly not going to try and explain old what's-his-name nor justify his rantings. But my recollection is that a lot of his ire was originally directed at Vampire the Masquerade. From there he expanded the crazy to include more games.

Quote from: ffilz;981539Hmm, I hate only having one level of quotes...

So add another level. You just nest one quote inside of the other.

Quote from: ffilz;981539That would not be my definition, and honestly, my definition of story game would include all RPGs and probably more games...

But if you define story games that way the label is useless for helping someone who doesn't want to play something like Dogs in the Vineyard when they are looking for an RPG to play.

QuoteMy impression was that he in fact was supportive of old school D&D...

My read of what Ron Edwards wrote leads me to conclude that he never understood the appeal of playing a character in a simulated imaginary world that responds in a naturalistic way to the character's actions, of exploring such a world as the character, nor of GMs who wanted to create and run such a simulated world.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;981552By the way, does anyone know if self-publishing in the OSR predates the Forgite self-publishing?

It does. Self publication or amateur publication was somewhat common in the 1970s and early 1980s. Often it took the form of APA fazines like Alarums and Excursion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarums_and_Excursions)s, but it also included game rules. Here's one example  (https://in-the-cities.com/2012/02/17/beasts-men-gods/)of a game a friend of mine self published in 1980.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1237[/ATTACH]
And apparently it's now available again on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Beasts-Men-Gods-Revised-2nd/dp/1461064708).

Quote from: Bren;981556It does. Self publication or amateur publication was somewhat common in the 1970s and early 1980s. Often it took the form of APA fazines like Alarums and Excursion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarums_and_Excursions)s, but it also included game rules. Here's one example  (https://in-the-cities.com/2012/02/17/beasts-men-gods/)of a game a friend of mine self published in 1980.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1237[/ATTACH]
And apparently it's now available again on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Beasts-Men-Gods-Revised-2nd/dp/1461064708).

I think I have that one. Is it digest-sized?

Quote from: Dumarest;981559I think I have that one. Is it digest-sized?

Its bigger than a traditional paperback and smaller than a typical magazine or RPG rule book. I guess that's digest sized.

Dumarest, out of curiosity did you get the Amazon version or the original 1980 edition?

Quote from: Arminius;981494Inclusion of D&D as a story game strikes me as either a distinction without a difference (what RPG isn't a story game, then?), or parochial interpretation (D&D can be played as a story-game if you apply certain conventions, like grafting the GMing section from DitV or Sorcerer/Sorcerer & Sword, structuring the game in scenes, improv GMing with no presumption of pre-existing facts in the world, and players given unquestioned input to scenes and scenarios as sort-of co-GMs). Or it's a motte-and-baily argument that only gets trotted out as a defense against characterizing story-games, then shelved for all other purposes.

Out of curiousity, have you taken a look at the 1st Ed DMG, pg 169-195? It's a series of tools to help the DM make things up as he goes. Alternatively, (and Appendix A *is* designed for this) it can be used for playing without a GM. Co-DMing also wasn't all that rare (if you had multiple DMs in the group), though it seemed to become extremely rare in the 90's, when everyone's campaign was too special for another DM to ever touch it.

Speaking for myself, the goal of play is to have a fun time creating a collaborative story. If you asked a lot of other people why they play, if "story" isn't on the list of reasons for the majority, it's definitely a large minority. And I'm still talking about plain old AD&D here. Point being, I don't know anyone can legitimately claim the "play goal" or "creative agenda" constitutes a different type of game from the traditional RPG. I'm not saying there's no difference between D&D and the so-called "story-games." I'm saying if there is a substantial difference, this ain't it. Neither is collaborative world-building, co-GMing, GM-less (or GM-full) play, or improv.

Quote from: Bren;981565Dumarest, out of curiosity did you get the Amazon version or the original 1980 edition?

I assume it's a reprint as I only got it in the last few years. I can't tell you the provenance as it was a gift and I didn't ask.  When I get home I can try to find it and see what it says.

Edwards used to go on and on about how "drift" made games like not only V:TM but also D&D "incoherent." I.e., the ability to do multiple styles of gaming with a single system (personal horror vs. katana vampires, court intrigue vs. dungeon crawling) was a sign of bad design. Games were meant to be focused like lasers.

It was a crock then, and it's a crock now. Focused games are fine, but so are diffuse ones.

Quote from: Bren;981565Dumarest, out of curiosity did you get the Amazon version or the original 1980 edition?

Copyright page says 3rd printing from 2011. I haven't had the opportunity to play it yet. I do like that it retains the charm of having been written on a typewriter; it reminds me of the early Champions books that way.  Have you played it?

Quote from: Bren;981551And knowing is half the battle...:D

I must have had lower expectations for those books. They remind me a bit of the solitaire board games (SPI, Avalon Hill, etc.) and solo scenarios for a multi-player games from back to the 1970s. They were no where near as much fun as actually playing against another person, but they were more fun than watching Happy Days or Laverne and Shirley on the TV and they did help learn the wargame rules. Similarly I've seen a few of those numbered paragraph branching solo adventures that were better than a sharp stick in the eye as a way to help new players learn a new system. WEG D6 had one or two of those. I think I remember seeing some for Runequest and Call of Cthulhu back in the 1980s. Alone Against the Wendigo was mildly fun and it was amusing to see how L.C. Nadelmann (your character) was going to get borked this time.

Spoiler

(https://gamebooks.org/gallery/coc_aatw.jpg)

CYOA or Gamebooks were almost all designed for kids. Nothing the matter with that obviously they were the gateway drug for probably thousands if not tens of thousands of kids into RPGs.

Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone pretty much left GW because they could make way more writing the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks in the 80s.

There are an excellent series of adaptations of Steve Jackson's Sorcery books into a text/video game hybrid by the UK designers Inkle that is well worth checking out.

The only truly adult CYOA book I'm aware of is Kim Newman's Life Lottery, which was reissued a few years ago in TPB.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;981475The funny thing about all this, and I say this as someone who did not even know "Story Games" were a thing until a couple months ago, and who only had a vague notion that the "OSR" was anything more than "old versions of D&D tarted up with better-organized manuals," is that these pretentious blowhards are making it sound like "the industry" has left D&D behind when in fact D&D and Pathfinder together comprise the lion's share of this teeny, tiny, $35m industry in terms of sales. Add in the various 3rd-party supplements, toss in the similar-but-not-quite D&D games like 13th Age, and you've got all these story games fighting over something like $5m in revenue, maybe less.

I'm sure there are randos on the internet saying that but I haven't any 'storygamer' designers claiming that they're somehow more important than D&D, particularly commercially. In fact it was the publisher behind 13th Age who pointed out that D&D is the tide that lifts all boats: when it is doing well all RPGs and storygames do better.

Quote from: Dumarest;981584Copyright page says 3rd printing from 2011. I haven't had the opportunity to play it yet. I do like that it retains the charm of having been written on a typewriter; it reminds me of the early Champions books that way.  Have you played it?

Yes. I was at college with Bill Underwood, the designer. I'm pretty sure the original rules were written on a typewriter. I played in Bill's campaign and that of one of the playtester/contributors.

It's an off-shoot of D&D. The big modifications that I recall were (i) inclusion of height and weight (similar to the contemporaneous Chivalry & Sorcery), (ii) a separation of hit points into body and stamina (as a way of getting around some of the oddities of the wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey, mish-mash of meat, fatigue, and combat capability that D&D hit points represent), (iii) related to that having critical hits and missile attacks do body damage, (iv) some tweaking or change in the armor and encumbrance rules, (v) a separation of melee and missile combat ability (at each level characters chose how much they improved their missile or melee attack, (vi) inclusion of separate religions for clerics with spells/miracles that were differentiated by religion, (vii) magic schools to differentiate magic users by area of focus (4 elements, illusion, necromancy, control, etc.), and (viii) use of a spell point system (mana) to allow casters to choose their spells at the time of casting rather than ahead of time.

Lunamancer, improv alone isn't what makes a story game--I was suggesting that someone could use the whole list to make D&D a story game. Yes, I did read the DMG, including those sections, when I bought it in 1979. At the time they seemed to be in the spirit of solitaire wargame rules--a set of procedures to generate details of an objective world, not guidelines for creating a dramatic narrative. Many story games do have the latter either embedded in formal rules or described in GMing advice about bringing character issues to the fore (etc.).

Have you read or played any story games such as Sorcerer, DitV, The Mountain Witch, My Life with Master, Poison'd, Primetime Adventures...?

Wasn't most of the RPGs that started small, but made it big, self published to begin with?

Like, right from the first box of D&D onwards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR_(company)#Tactical_Studies_Rules

I mean, unless it's a specifically licensed IP product, aren't almost all RPGs originally 'indie' in effect?

Quote from: Vargold;981577Edwards used to go on and on about how "drift" made games like not only V:TM but also D&D "incoherent." I.e., the ability to do multiple styles of gaming with a single system (personal horror vs. katana vampires, court intrigue vs. dungeon crawling) was a sign of bad design. Games were meant to be focused like lasers.

It was a crock then, and it's a crock now. Focused games are fine, but so are diffuse ones.

Diffuse ones are better because the variety of scenarios possible allow to keep going back to them, rather than just use once and discard after.

Quote from: Lunamancer;981569Out of curiousity, have you taken a look at the 1st Ed DMG, pg 169-195? It's a series of tools to help the DM make things up as he goes. Alternatively, (and Appendix A *is* designed for this) it can be used for playing without a GM. Co-DMing also wasn't all that rare (if you had multiple DMs in the group), though it seemed to become extremely rare in the 90's, when everyone's campaign was too special for another DM to ever touch it.

Speaking for myself, the goal of play is to have a fun time creating a collaborative story. If you asked a lot of other people why they play, if "story" isn't on the list of reasons for the majority, it's definitely a large minority. And I'm still talking about plain old AD&D here. Point being, I don't know anyone can legitimately claim the "play goal" or "creative agenda" constitutes a different type of game from the traditional RPG. I'm not saying there's no difference between D&D and the so-called "story-games." I'm saying if there is a substantial difference, this ain't it. Neither is collaborative world-building, co-GMing, GM-less (or GM-full) play, or improv.

And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

I'm not sure I actively hate story telling elements in something like Fate. But I wouldn't be mad on collaborating or GM-less games at all. That would be a stretch too far. More because I like the traditional structure of a GM and players.

A good GM will be picking up on story elements from the players at any rate whether they know it or not. So, players will always have some input into how the story goes even though the GM will control it overall (or at least the flow of it).

I'm fine with Fate Points (in WFRP) or Bennies, etc. These technically can really change the outcome of a story and give the player quite a bit of control over their own fate. I like the way these add drama and can cut the players a break. Especially in low fantasy settings where players can drop like flies.

For mechanics like 'aspects' in Fate, I'm alright with those too, but only in regards to that specific system. It works pretty well when you have a good group who are not taking the piss. I think it allows for a lot of player creativity, but it can be abused. That said, the GM can always overrule you, so you have that as a back up.

In general, I prefer a more traditional system but don't always 'hate' on narrrative stuff.

Quote from: The Exploited.;981628I'm not sure I actively hate story telling elements in something like Fate. But I wouldn't be mad on collaborating or GM-less games at all. That would be a stretch too far. More because I like the traditional structure of a GM and players.

A good GM will be picking up on story elements from the players at any rate whether they know it or not. So, players will always have some input into how the story goes even though the GM will control it overall (or at least the flow of it).

I'm fine with Fate Points (in WFRP) or Bennies, etc. These technically can really change the outcome of a story and give the player quite a bit of control over their own fate. I like the way these add drama and can cut the players a break. Especially in low fantasy settings where players can drop like flies.

For mechanics like 'aspects' in Fate, I'm alright with those too, but only in regards to that specific system. It works pretty well when you have a good group who are not taking the piss. I think it allows for a lot of player creativity, but it can be abused. That said, the GM can always overrule you, so you have that as a back up.

In general, I prefer a more traditional system but don't always 'hate' on narrrative stuff.

I prefer more traditional system as well but I don't mind more narrative things at all. Allot of it more mechanical variations of things I do (and have done) anyway. It can be implemented in ways I don't like or overdone until it becomes intrusive but, overall, I think its fine.

Quote from: ffilz;981539Hmm, I hate only having one level of quotes...

As do I. Always good when the software takes care of it.

Quote from: ffilz;981539That would not be my definition, and honestly, my definition of story game would include all RPGs and probably more games...

What is your definition?

Quote from: ffilz;981539But I've always appreciated that story-games.com IS inclusive of old school D&D play. One poster I always follow is playing old school D&D (well, I think they use Lamentations of the Flame Princess). Probably not exactly the same way we played back in the 70s, but in much the same spirit. Now I know not all who frequent that site would include old school D&D in story games, but I've always felt the admins are friendly.

Much different than the impression I got when I looked at it a few years ago.

Quote from: ffilz;981539As to what Ron Edwards said in his brain damage, I read it as coming from his frustration with what World of Darkness and other very scripted/railroaded games did to the hobby. My impression was that he in fact was supportive of old school D&D (separately, there was the Fantasy Heartbreaker deal, but that was more about designers of games he labeled as such putting their heart into something that didn't offer enough new to do well enough in the marketplace to break even, and more the shame, the new ideas they did have in their game got lost as a result of being buried in this otherwise D&D ripoff). The publishing opportunities we have today make it much more possible to publish such a game and get enough attention to justify the investment in money and time. In any case, the brain damage post did a lot of damage to the Forge community and the games that came out of it.

Frank

Much different than the way I understood his writing and I found the Fantasy Heartbreaker ranting to be insulting in a very planned and calculated way.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

Exactly this, pure sandbox play completely resembles real life in this respect.

Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man and emulate their stories with episodes, arcs and such. And it was more important for us having cool stories and scenes with flair and drama than simply overcoming obstacles or simulating physical realities. And that carried over to RPGs.

I think the magic of the hobby is in how open it is to accommodate so many different styles and expressions. Stories, Minis, Hexmaps, Boards, Acting, Drama, Tongue-in-Cheek, Tactics, Beer & Pretzels, Comedy, etc. So many possibilities, and all work as long as people have fun.

Quote from: Itachi;981648Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man and emulate their stories with episodes, arcs and such. And it was more important for us having cool stories and scenes with flair and drama than simply overcoming obstacles or simulating physical realities. And that carried over to RPGs.

I think the magic of the hobby is in how open it is to accommodate so many different styles and expressions. Stories, Minis, Hexmaps, Boards, Acting, Drama, Tongue-in-Cheek, Tactics, Beer & Pretzels, Comedy, etc. So many possibilities, and all work as long as people have fun.

Well, I think pretty much all of us did "let's pretend" when we were kids.  However, I can acutely remember when me and a bunch of other kids would be running around our hood playing "Army" there would be inevitable disagreements about resolution of actions taken - "I got you!"  "no you didn't I got you first!" - and I would wish for a way to adjudicate those and when D&D came along I saw it as a way to pretend but with meaningful rules and structure.  I never wanted to BE RAMBO.  I always saw it as pretending to be "a soldier in battle" and I always saw that as different from wanting to be a character in a movie.

I've got news for you, Pollyanna.

But seriously, IMO people tend to exaggerate differences in an effort to get a point across. For example, many fans of trad games are comfortable with luck points, even grateful for them as a tool to smooth over their use of a deadly combat system. ("Why not use a less deadly system?" Simple--the deadly one is more fun.) Many are comfortable with--or at least don't worry about--the GM coming up with interesting new campaign events and complications, if otherwise there'd be nothing to do. I like eggplant parmigiana.

However abstraction and analysis of game characteristics at the mechanical and (for lack of a better term) cognitive level is valuable both as a way of improving your game and deciding whether to spend money and time on rules, methods, even game groups. That's why I object to efforts to blur, misunderstand, and misconstrue statements of taste.

As I've mentioned, I'm one of the least familiar with this whole controversial argument. I sat out most of the online community from ~'99-2009 or so and missed the Forge, etc. Here are some thoughts, which might be completely off base.

Quote from: Itachi;981648Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man

I think, if that had been the way that people had initially seen the division/divergence between game-focused* RPG-ing and story-focused RPG-ing, there would be less acrimony.  If people were simply saying, "well, for me the most important part is having a challenge set up by the MC (DM), who arbitrates it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying, "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend." I think people would be a lot more okay with saying, 'Okay, we're doing this thing for different reasons. Some people might want to do both, but mostly these are two divergent interests which should largely be able to live separate-but-acrimony-free lives.' It really looks to my novice perspective like this hate-fest between these camps has got to be a case of historic grievances.
*by which I mean RPGs as an outgrowth of wargaming, predominantly being an resource(including-information)-and-risk-allocation challenge (and even that definition I know I'm going to get flack for)

Of course, the historic grievances probably go back well before this Ron Edwards guy and the Forge etc. They seem really to be latecomers to this whole debate (even the Storyteller systems he's reacting to seem to be a second wave of story-focused innovations, after things like the Dragonlance adventures or 2e AD&D's Paladins & Princesses focus, depending on how much of a thing that ever really was). I don't know that it was as well defined as it has become (obviously people didn't start using the term 'story game' to describe their games until they needed to distinguish it from something, any more than people described their games as 'sandbox' until there was something else it could be), but it's older than my involvement in the game. I started in '83 (and only really got a grasp of what the game community looked like outside of my own groups in '88 or so when I discovered Usenet), however, even by then, there was a lot of talk about the 'right' way to play RPGs.

Not that people were always in one camp or another, nor ever change their minds. I remember hearing (perhaps Playing at the World?) of Gary saying something along the lines of, 'the only reason a DM needs dice is for something to do with his hands' and people reacting to it roughly like Dylan going electric.  

QuoteI think the magic of the hobby is in how open it is to accommodate so many different styles and expressions. Stories, Minis, Hexmaps, Boards, Acting, Drama, Tongue-in-Cheek, Tactics, Beer & Pretzels, Comedy, etc. So many possibilities, and all work as long as people have fun.

And yet we seem to do a wonderful job of finding ways to slice our niche hobby into sub-factions and declare the others anathema, particularly online. I know, others have said that their other hobbies and interests have online communities which are just as bad. I still find that amazing.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

Just so for me too. The idea of "story gaming" as it relates to RPGs reminds me of what Instagram is to food. It used to be people enjoyed eating amazing food, and if it was amazing enough, they even took a picture of it to demonstrate how good it tasted. Nowadays, people actively seek plates that look good for the picture, and just eat whatever looks best. The picture has become more important than the flavor.

Likewise, people all used to play RPGs to make choices and have adventures, and if a good story unfolded they'd share it later. Having a story to tell was a sign that the game was a good one. Storygaming, like Instagramming meals, skips the tasty part and jumps right to the status symbol (and of course that symbol becomes meaningless since it represents naught of substance).

So there is eating, and then there is photography, and they are two completely different things. The fact that both label their activity "dining" doesn't make those activities more than superficially -- even deceptively -- similar.

Quote from: Arminius;981654But seriously, IMO people tend to exaggerate differences in an effort to get a point across.

I think nearly all attempts at slicing up what we are doing (storygaming vs. not, sandbox vs. not, OSR vs. not, this system better than the other) are routinely exaggerated.

QuoteHowever abstraction and analysis of game characteristics at the mechanical and (for lack of a better term) cognitive level is valuable both as a way of improving your game and deciding whether to spend money and time on rules, methods, even game groups. That's why I object to efforts to blur, misunderstand, and misconstrue statements of taste.

Sure, and it's not like there aren't differences. You can't pretend that (as a divergent example) playing Monopoly with and without the free-parking-money houserule doesn't genuinely effect how the game plays out. And it is certainly worth analyzing those differences. It's just the amount of emphasis on those differences that goes on in online discussions. It's... amazing I guess is the right word, as I'm still genuinely amazed.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

Exactly.

"Once upon a time there was a world.  People lived on it.  Some lived lives of quiet desparation, some became great heroes, some died young because they were stupid or unlucky, and Shmolo the Peasant Boy got killed by a runaway manure cart at age 13."

Quote from: Crimhthan;981639As do I. Always good when the software takes care of it.


What is your definition?

I really don't have much of a definition. I'm not sure my definition is really worth it, because as an expansive concept, it doesn't help understand why some folks hate old school and other folks hate "story games." Honestly, when it comes to trying to understand why someone doesn't like something, it would be better to be specific about what it is you don't like contrasted to what you don't like.

Here's a silly example: "I don't like GURPS because it only uses d6 and I want to use my collection of polyhedral dice." Honestly, whenever I'm playing a game that doesn't use the polyhedral dice, sometimes I yearn for a game that does, because I like all the shapes. Now it actually doesn't really make me want to never play a d6 only game... (and my reasons for not wanting to play GURPS really aren't about the dice...).

QuoteMuch different than the impression I got when I looked at it a few years ago.

I've always found story-games.com welcome as an entity to old school gaming discussion. At times it may seem unfriendly because there doesn't seem any current discussion, or the folks actively discussing seem to be dissing on old school gaming in some way. Having been following since close to the start of the site, I'm just basing on my overall experience. But then I have at least some interest in the discussion of the more narativist games and I'm sure that colors how I experience the discourse.

QuoteMuch different than the way I understood his writing and I found the Fantasy Heartbreaker ranting to be insulting in a very planned and calculated way.

I think Ron Edwards had some good ideas, but couldn't be bothered with trying to present them diplomatically. A lot of what he writes reads as coming out guns blazing, but reading through the lines, it can read differently. So yea, I get how the fantasy heart breaker stuff reads as insulting, and in a way it is, but I also took away that he DID respect the old school games and that most of his disrespect was aimed at things like Vampire...

As some have mentioned in the past day, I am intrigued by how some of the "story game" mechanics are just making more explicit something GMs were already doing back in the 70s. Now sometimes making something more explicit is a bad thing, either because it makes it too rigid (and RPGs were born because the game allowed for non-rigid play - rulings not rules and all that), or even because it calls too much attention. But from an analyzing why something is more fun or less fun, sometimes it's interesting to see a non-rigid procedure be made explicit so we can see what's actually going on.

Understanding things like "say yes or roll the dice" or Burning Wheel's "let it ride" give me ideas on how to run OD&D and Classic Traveller better. And one of these days, I'll find time to run Burning Wheel again.

I also get the distinction between games with a strong GM and those with a less strong or even no GM. And I definitely prefer strong GM games, but not all "story games" are weak or no GM games. Burning Wheel is very much a strong GM game. Even Dogs in the Vineyard (which I would play again) is a strong GM game, though I get how it might be of no interest to an old school gamer.

Frank

While the Forge and some of the people in the indie scene have written some crazy rants, I've no hate for narrative gaming or narrative elements in gaming.
While 75% of the time I'm more for trad games, I occasionally pick up indie/narrativist games.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;981666Sure, and it's not like there aren't differences. You can't pretend that (as a divergent example) playing Monopoly with and without the free-parking-money houserule doesn't genuinely effect how the game plays out. And it is certainly worth analyzing those differences. It's just the amount of emphasis on those differences that goes on in online discussions. It's... amazing I guess is the right word, as I'm still genuinely amazed.

The emphasis on it and the outright hostility in some cases is amazing.

Quote from: Itachi;981648Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man and emulate their stories with episodes, arcs and such. And it was more important for us having cool stories and scenes with flair and drama than simply overcoming obstacles or simulating physical realities. And that carried over to RPGs.

I'm mostly in the lets make a cool/fun story side. I like a degree of "world simulation" and prefer more traditional game mechanics, the GM/Player divide, etc But I do want create dramatic, exciting worlds that are like the fiction I (and my players enjoy) with characters that feel like people in those worlds. One of the big goals I game for is Escapism and part of that is playing in a world that's more cinematic, dramatic and fantastic that our reality where Stuff Happens to the PCs who are the stars of the game (but not necessarily the center of the world/setting)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;981662I think, if that had been the way that people had initially seen the division/divergence between game-focused* RPG-ing and story-focused RPG-ing, there would be less acrimony.  If people were simply saying, "well, for me the most important part is having a challenge set up by the MC (DM), who arbitrates it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying, "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend." I think people would be a lot more okay with saying, 'Okay, we're doing this thing for different reasons. Some people might want to do both, but mostly these are two divergent interests which should largely be able to live separate-but-acrimony-free lives.' It really looks to my novice perspective like this hate-fest between these camps has got to be a case of historic grievances.
*by which I mean RPGs as an outgrowth of wargaming, predominantly being an resource(including-information)-and-risk-allocation challenge (and even that definition I know I'm going to get flack for)

Regarding your "game-focused* RPG-ing" definition, no flack from me that is closer than most people get, I would just add in the exploration component.

Your two examples of "if people were saying" is interesting, because here is what I "hear". That is regardless of what they are saying this is what I am hearing.

"Well, for me the most important part is having the DM setup a sandbox* campaign and create a living world where things are happening all over the place, I (my party) get to choose anyone of dozens or hundreds of things we learn of and choose one or just strike out in any direction if the mood takes us and the DM will arbitrate it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend, oh my character needs to have all high stats, magic, luck points and any other advantages I can think of and you don't dare let me die or fail."

*Sandboxes have hooks that is to say a real sandbox is a living world and things are happening everywhere all the time. Players will hear rumors, see caravans going all, all kinds of things, they can choose any one of those things or do something else of their choosing, they can pursue something close by or far away, if they want to can go to the tavern drink up all their money, sell their possessions and keep drinking if they  want to do that. If anyone tells you that a sandbox doesn't have hooks, roll your eyes and ignore them.

Quote from: ffilz;981693I really don't have much of a definition. I'm not sure my definition is really worth it, because as an expansive concept, it doesn't help understand why some folks hate old school and other folks hate "story games." Honestly, when it comes to trying to understand why someone doesn't like something, it would be better to be specific about what it is you don't like contrasted to what you don't like.

SNIP

Frank

Thank you for the additional comments. it occurs to me that a story is a monologue by usually one author and I don't want a monologue in my game. The connotations of the word story don't mesh with what some of us think of when we think of game. So the word rings wrong just because.

Online arguments do tend to be more dogmatic, aggressive and hyperbolic, I'd guess due to combination of anonymity (asses can act like bigger asses with no repercussions), face opponents (they're not real people, just words on a screen so empathy and restraint are limited) and the effect of fighting in public: performing for the audience, fear of losing face and sometimes people egging it on for the laughs.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981703Your two examples of "if people were saying" is interesting, because here is what I "hear". That is regardless of what they are saying this is what I am hearing.

"Well, for me the most important part is having the DM setup a sandbox* campaign and create a living world where things are happening all over the place, I (my party) get to choose anyone of dozens or hundreds of things we learn of and choose one or just strike out in any direction if the mood takes us and the DM will arbitrate it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend, oh my character needs to have all high stats, magic, luck points and any other advantages I can think of and you don't dare let me die or fail."

Interesting. I'm not really sure where to take it though. We certainly can't go out and get hard numbers on these kind of things. Has there ever been a story-gamer who has wanted the game handed to them? Absolutely. At a population level, and to a significantly higher level than game-focused RPG-ers? And in excess of some other annoying trait that the game-focused RPG-ers have in excess to the story-gamers? That's a tough nut to crack beyond our base impressions (which will be colored by our perspectives).

Quote from: Crimhthan;981639What is your definition?

I define tabletop roleplayng games as
Where one or more players interact with their setting as individual characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

For story games I would define it as

Where two or more participants use the rules of a game to collaborate on creating a story.

If group is not there to collaborate on creating a story then they are doing something else. With tabletop roleplaying there has to be at least three elements Players playing individual characters, Interacting with a setting as their characters, and a human referee to decide what happens when specific actions are attempted.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981703"Well, for me the most important part is having the DM setup a sandbox* campaign and create a living world where things are happening all over the place, I (my party) get to choose anyone of dozens or hundreds of things we learn of and choose one or just strike out in any direction if the mood takes us and the DM will arbitrate it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend, oh my character needs to have all high stats, magic, luck points and any other advantages I can think of and you don't dare let me die or fail."

That's a good description of two broad play styles, but for example, Dogs in the Vineyard isn't either of those. Nor is the GM's pet story railroad. On the other hand, Burning Wheel is definitely closer to the first than the second, though the GM may be more reactive than a more pure sandbox.

But that's why I'm challenged to divide the hobby up into segments. Because it's really all a multi-dimensional continuum. There are some wide swaths of it I'm not interested in, and some folks here are interested in smaller swaths of it than I am, but that's all cool. And as a continuum, it's actually hard to define the edges, so we get games way out near one edge or another, and we ask, well, is that really an RPG?

Which has led me to attach to Vincent Baker's concept of the shared imagined space with procedures to decide how the various players (and GM's) contributions are managed. I think the "game" part of RPG is also significant, so pure collaborative story telling maybe doesn't actually fit (though some collaborative story telling probably does have some "game" aspects and then it creeps closer to the continuum, maybe even entering the continuum).

The one type of game that almost certainly decidedly is NOT an RPG is a so called computer RPG... (on the other hand, maybe MUDs and such do qualify, I don't have any experience with those to be able to pass judgement).

Frank

Quote from: Nexus;981709Online arguments do tend to be more dogmatic, aggressive and hyperbolic, I'd guess due to combination of...

All true, but what I was getting at above is that in some discussions--RPG "styles" among them--people feel a need to over stress their points when they aren't being acknowledged, or even more, when other parties are denying them at every turn. For example, saying that distaste or lack of interest in story games or certain mechanics is based on social tribalism, lack of familiarity, or a kind of delusion is naturally going to make people work harder to prove the validity of their tastes.

Quote from: Arminius;981612Lunamancer, improv alone isn't what makes a story game

Yeah, absolutely nothing in my post even hinted that it might be. That was one of what, 8 other things I mentioned. I don't have a lot of patience for dishonesty in rhetoric. I've asked an honest question. I'm not interested in anything but an honest answer, if you've got one.

QuoteI was suggesting that someone could use the whole list to make D&D a story game.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I'm not holding you to your statement nor taking it as gospel. I'm questioning what is the substantive difference, if any, between so-called story games and so-called traditional ones.

QuoteAt the time they seemed to be in the spirit of solitaire wargame rules--a set of procedures to generate details of an objective world, not guidelines for creating a dramatic narrative. Many story games do have the latter either embedded in formal rules or described in GMing advice about bringing character issues to the fore (etc.).

The key word being "seemed" (to you). To me, not just that section but the totality of the game, in both its formal rules and those rules that opt not to wear a tuxedo, are exactly that--guidelines for creating a story.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

And that's just swell. Did you have a point?

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

This really isn't new information, though, is it? I didn't actually say story creation was THE purpose of D&D, did I? I was very specific that it's how I play, was I not? And that a lot of other people play that way, and even conceded that it may be a minority. It's just not a small minority.

So is your point then that if a game CAN be used for something other than being obsessed with stories front-to-back then it's not a storygame? And if so, isn't that a horrible corner to paint storygames into? Doesn't that pretty much guarantee so many people will dislike storygames that the two or three tenths of a percent who do will feel like odd-men out and may therefore create the perception of vitriol from the community at large?

Quote from: ffilz;981733But that's why I'm challenged to divide the hobby up into segments. Because it's really all a multi-dimensional continuum. There are some wide swaths of it I'm not interested in, and some folks here are interested in smaller swaths of it than I am, but that's all cool. And as a continuum, it's actually hard to define the edges, so we get games way out near one edge or another, and we ask, well, is that really an RPG?

My view the problem is that the difference is one of focus. The same game rules can be used to run a campaign with the focus is on players competing with each to determine a victor, where each player has a individual character and interacts with a setting, where each players is part of a group collaborating on creating a story. Is that game a wargame? A RPG? Or a story-game? It all three and what the game is depends on what the campaign is about.

Quote from: Lunamancer;981740Yeah, absolutely nothing in my post even hinted that it might be. That was one of what, 8 other things I mentioned. I don't have a lot of patience for dishonesty in rhetoric. I've asked an honest question. I'm not interested in anything but an honest answer, if you've got one.

First of all, if you're looking to offend, congrats, you've done it. Second, I seem to recall going round before with you, where I couldn't figure out what you were alluding to and you asking me for precision in something that I couldn't imagine being stated any more plainly.

Moving on, and really a last attempt at communication, I do in fact think that story games are ones that can't be played by the rules and the designer's guidelines (say, in GMing guidelines) without an awareness of story-creation. You can play D&D--more or less, given the loose structure and the optional nature of so much of the content--in a way that emphasizes story, but you don't have to. There's no need for the GM and players to guide events in a manner that highlights dramatic conflict and away from anticlimactic courses. In fact if the GM does so, the players can reasonably criticize the use of "story logic". Not that they will--they might like it. But if DitV players are surprised and less than overjoyed at the GM's hammering on character issues until an eventual crisis occurs, they're playing wrong.

In short, I'm not the first one to say this, but storygames may enshrine practices that could be used used in almost any RPG. That doesn't mean all RPGs are story games, just that there's a variety of philosophies of play. I--honestly--don't think D&D was written as a story creation game, any more than wargames are, although the narrative quality of both--events happening, before your eyes, in a simulacrum of life--was always an attraction. At the same time, war games and the rpgs that grew from them have a low tolerance for contrivance. The culture is much more "what if?" and "you are there" than "let's have a good story". Again, that's how I read White Box and AD&D back in the 70s, and although it's possible I was bringing something external to the texts, I think it's more likely that a close reading will support the conclusion that more had to be added and subtracted to get "story creation" than to get "world simulation". It's just that the population at large, and the Red Box generation, had cultural training that made it easier and more attractive to perform those adjustments.

Quote from: Nexus;981709Online arguments do tend to be more dogmatic, aggressive and hyperbolic, I'd guess due to combination of anonymity (asses can act like bigger asses with no repercussions), face opponents (they're not real people, just words on a screen so empathy and restraint are limited) and the effect of fighting in public: performing for the audience, fear of losing face and sometimes people egging it on for the laughs.

And we're back to Post #1 and Post #3 in this very thread.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981640Exactly this, pure sandbox play completely resembles real life in this respect.

   For interpretations of 'real life' that assume a mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe, I suppose. :)

If God's a story teller, He's not a very good or consistent one. I'm not sure I'd want to die on that particular hill.

Quote from: Arminius;981773First of all, if you're looking to offend, congrats, you've done it. Second, I seem to recall going round before with you, where I couldn't figure out what you were alluding to and you asking me for precision in something that I couldn't imagine being stated any more plainly.

Moving on, and really a last attempt at communication, I do in fact think that story games are ones that can't be played by the rules and the designer's guidelines (say, in GMing guidelines) without an awareness of story-creation. You can play D&D--more or less, given the loose structure and the optional nature of so much of the content--in a way that emphasizes story, but you don't have to. There's no need for the GM and players to guide events in a manner that highlights dramatic conflict and away from anticlimactic courses. In fact if the GM does so, the players can reasonably criticize the use of "story logic". Not that they will--they might like it. But if DitV players are surprised and less than overjoyed at the GM's hammering on character issues until an eventual crisis occurs, they're playing wrong.

In short, I'm not the first one to say this, but storygames may enshrine practices that could be used used in almost any RPG. That doesn't mean all RPGs are story games, just that there's a variety of philosophies of play. I--honestly--don't think D&D was written as a story creation game, any more than wargames are, although the narrative quality of both--events happening, before your eyes, in a simulacrum of life--was always an attraction. At the same time, war games and the rpgs that grew from them have a low tolerance for contrivance. The culture is much more "what if?" and "you are there" than "let's have a good story". Again, that's how I read White Box and AD&D back in the 70s, and although it's possible I was bringing something external to the texts, I think it's more likely that a close reading will support the conclusion that more had to be added and subtracted to get "story creation" than to get "world simulation". It's just that the population at large, and the Red Box generation, had cultural training that made it easier and more attractive to perform those adjustments.

This all makes sense to me and the world simulation view of D&D aligns with my experiences with the early days of Brown Box D&D circa 1974.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;981790For interpretations of 'real life' that assume a mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe, I suppose. :)

So your a story-lifer? ;)

Quote from: Zalman;981664Just so for me too. The idea of "story gaming" as it relates to RPGs reminds me of what Instagram is to food. It used to be people enjoyed eating amazing food, and if it was amazing enough, they even took a picture of it to demonstrate how good it tasted. Nowadays, people actively seek plates that look good for the picture, and just eat whatever looks best. The picture has become more important than the flavor.

Likewise, people all used to play RPGs to make choices and have adventures, and if a good story unfolded they'd share it later. Having a story to tell was a sign that the game was a good one. Storygaming, like Instagramming meals, skips the tasty part and jumps right to the status symbol (and of course that symbol becomes meaningless since it represents naught of substance).

So there is eating, and then there is photography, and they are two completely different things. The fact that both label their activity "dining" doesn't make those activities more than superficially -- even deceptively -- similar.

Perfect example of someone projecting negative traits onto others because they like something you don't. Based on exactly nothing as well I'd say.

Quote from: Zalman;981664Just so for me too. The idea of "story gaming" as it relates to RPGs reminds me of what Instagram is to food. It used to be people enjoyed eating amazing food, and if it was amazing enough, they even took a picture of it to demonstrate how good it tasted. Nowadays, people actively seek plates that look good for the picture, and just eat whatever looks best. The picture has become more important than the flavor.

Um... No. I did not buy this (https://www.instagram.com/p/BXoGm0Klg9x/) earlier today so I could post it on Instagram. I posted it on Instagram because it's Katsu Ramen and freaking awesome.

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: Justin Alexander;981866His original post (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/marginalia/3777) ascribed it to games from "1970-ish" to 2006 ("the present" when the essay was written).

This is the thread we are referring to:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981866In practice, exactly the opposite. Because narrative control is governed mechanically, it's impossible for a dominant personality to "always get his way" without literally bullying the other players into ignoring the rules. You might as well argue that dominant players in Monopoly always get to purchase all of the properties because they'll threaten to beat up any other player who refuses to let them do so.

For that matter, I've seen dominant personalities (read: assholes) dominate Traditional if they can intimate or manipulate the other players into a kowtowing to their wishes.

From the very beginnings back in 74' or so I recall playing sessions including comments like this from players...

"Oh, you know what would be cool? What if the Inn is really a beached old pirate ship and the retired captain is now the Inn Keeper!"

To which the GM might reply "Yeah, cool idea sure!" or maybe "Nah, neat idea though."

We didnt even know what a "story game" was but the idea of everyone having the potential for adding elements to the game at times didnt seem like heresy. At least some of these games mentioned have a mechanic for controllling it. Personally as GM I kind of resist players monkeying with my setting but dont take issue with them having a bit of narrative control over minor elements. (ie. the shop keeper is working late and will open even at the late hour, it begins to rain and helps cover their tracks, the barmaid happens to recognize one of the PCs from when she worked in a nearby town etc.)

The PCs are heroes afterall and throughout endless examples from fiction we find that good things happen to heroes - they are must lucky, fated or what have you. I think that sort of things adds to the experience of playing, in moderation. I dont hold it against anyone for feeling differently though, to either extreme.

Quote from: ffilz;981693I think Ron Edwards had some good ideas, but couldn't be bothered with trying to present them diplomatically. A lot of what he writes reads as coming out guns blazing, but reading through the lines, it can read differently. So yea, I get how the fantasy heart breaker stuff reads as insulting, and in a way it is, but I also took away that he DID respect the old school games and that most of his disrespect was aimed at things like Vampire...

The problem with Ron's formulation around "heartbreakers" isn't that it's not presented diplomatically -- or that it's disrespectful, it's that it's a ridiculous and naive way of understanding game design.

He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs. This is a novel thing to be frustrated about given the relative commercial and critical success of many of these games and the ultimate failure of his ideas and his games.

Of course a lot of people who picked up on the nomenclature use the term "heartbreaker" in much less specific ways -- to describe any game they find derivative. In this way, it's very much like his GNS stuff -- functionally and intellectually incoherent, but great for snubbing other games and gamers.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Nexus;981900For that matter, I've seen dominant personalities (read: assholes) dominate Traditional if they can intimate or manipulate the other players into a kowtowing to their wishes.

Of course the solution is, don't play with assholes, not try to invent the asshole-proof system.

Quote from: CRKrueger;981905Of course the solution is, don't play with assholes, not try to invent the asshole-proof system.

Absolutely. It's the group your playing with, not the system that determines your enjoyment.

An arsehole is just as capable of dominating a 'narrative' RPG as any other.

Quote from: CRKrueger;981905Of course the solution is, don't play with assholes, not try to invent the asshole-proof system.

That's not the point, its that "storygames" aren't anymore prone to (and its not part and parcel its them that they are) being dominated by strong personalities than "traditional" games. Its a risk whenever human interact.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;981906Absolutely. It's the group your playing with, not the system that determines your enjoyment.

An arsehole is just as capable of dominating a 'narrative' RPG as any other.

Id have to disagree. In my experience Ive had some great games with assholes because.. well it was a good game, whereas a crappy game is just crappy no matter who you play with.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981917Id have to disagree. In my experience Ive had some great games with assholes because.. well it was a good game, whereas a crappy game is just crappy no matter who you play with.

But what constitutes a "crappy game" is also a very subjective opinion, and I've never had a great game with assholes. I choose who I play with with some selectivity on that basis, but I'd always try new games with players I like.

Quote from: Arminius;981773First of all, if you're looking to offend, congrats, you've done it.

Not looking to offend. Never was. I just don't care to have words put in my mouth. I appreciate you giving another go at communicating.

QuoteI do in fact think that story games are ones that can't be played by the rules and the designer's guidelines (say, in GMing guidelines) without an awareness of story-creation. You can play D&D--more or less, given the loose structure and the optional nature of so much of the content--in a way that emphasizes story, but you don't have to.

Well, that's sort of exactly what it seemed to me. But the immediate and obvious follow-up question is, why would anyone in their right mind ever choose to go with the one-trick pony? Can there really be nothing more to it than that? And if not, then doesn't that in itself go a long way to answering the OPs question? That some of what's said is simply truth, not vitriol? And the rest that is vitriol is a natural response to those evangelizing against variety? It seems like there really ought to be more to it, and that something more ought to be a better characterization of what story games are and do.

QuoteThere's no need for the GM and players to guide events in a manner that highlights dramatic conflict and away from anticlimactic courses. In fact if the GM does so, the players can reasonably criticize the use of "story logic". Not that they will--they might like it. But if DitV players are surprised and less than overjoyed at the GM's hammering on character issues until an eventual crisis occurs, they're playing wrong.

Here's the thing. I don't know what anticlimactic is. I understand English. I understand what climactic means in the context of a story. I understand what putting anti in front of a word does. I understand the context around which the term anticlimactic is used. I just don't know that anticlimactic actually refers to anything objective. Someone might say of a movie, "I felt that scene was anticlimactic," and I'll respond "Okay, so you didn't like it. But I did. It surprised me. It broke the rules. The story seemed to be building to such a shitty cheesy cliche moment, then bam, it went in another direction. It was frickin' awesome!" As it pertains to RPGs, I can point to an endless number of things that happen that elicit a difference of opinion. I'm not sure any of it is objective enough to attribute to a story structure to make the determination of whether it was in line with "story logic" or not. I just don't see it.

Or to put it another way, say we're in a game session of D&D. I'm dungeon master. We're going along, going along. Suddenly we come to a crucial point. Something to do with a dragon. What happens next? Well, for the referee in me, I hear out what the players hope to achieve and how they plan on doing it, and I adjudicate faithfully according to the rules. Repeat as necessary. And what does the story guy in me do? Yeah, I could ask "What would be best for the story" but I already know the answer: "I don't know." Nobody does. Some people only think they do. And besides, it's not really how it turns out that matters so much as how we get there. And oh my look, we just so happen to have a pretty decent set of rules that takes input from all the players as well as myself in collaboration and helps guide our collaborative effort to some resolution. Which, by the way, is a full metric fuck-tonne more story support than your typical so-called story game will give.

So it turns out the real plot twist is the story guy and the referee were the same guy all along. Because as I understand the RPG structure, the descriptive/narrative have impact on the game and mechanics; the game and mechanics have a descriptive/narrative justification. If everyone takes 1 damage per turn, that gives a pretty intense count-down type feeling and it will influence the PCs towards a strong sense of urgency. Mechanic --> Narrative. But, you're right, a lot of players will cry foul if I'm just pulling some bull crap to make the story more interesting. It isn't in the rules. I can't just do random shit like that. It needs justification. A strange-looking mist is poisonous and causes 1 damage per turn to any creature within the area who breathes or has exposed flesh. Narrative --> Mechanics. Without the mechanical effect, sure, players can play make-believe and go all community theatre and pretend to be all pissy pants, but it doesn't have the same visceral effect of watching in a very real way your fictional character's life tic-toc away.

Is this then what distinguishes a story game from a traditional one? The belief that you can only work towards one "creative agenda" at a time; that they are in a way mutually exclusive? No. That wouldn't make sense. Plenty of people who believe that who are on the "anti-story" side. If you ask me, it's a pretty dismal coin to be on either side of. So maybe that answers the OP's question. Maybe "the two sides" are just grumpy because they're not really having as much fun as they claim or as much fun as theory tells them they should be, and they are looking for someone other than themselves and the things they believe to blame. Filthy story-gamers, poisong my players minds with their wacky millennial notions!

QuoteIn short, I'm not the first one to say this, but storygames may enshrine practices that could be used used in almost any RPG. That doesn't mean all RPGs are story games, just that there's a variety of philosophies of play.

Right. I get that. My D&D game would certainly be a lot more sci-fi if I started porting over items from the Star Wars RPG. Here's the thing, though. I'd be a lot more inclined to buy into this view if story games had innovated these practices. I haven't been gaming quite as long as you. But I'd already had a lot of years under my belt before Ron Edwards wrote Sorcerer. I'd played with a lot of different people. I played and ran games at cons. I read the odd issue of dragon magazine. And I swear, I've yet to see a single story game technique that I didn't first see used to play D&D. I've always just assumed that's where they got the ideas from. Same places I got them from. So who's aping who? To the OP's question, I know I've personally been annoyed by story game evangelists who insist AD&D doesn't have the technology to do story well. What I want to say is bitch please, you ain't never had an original thought in yo' life.

QuoteI--honestly--don't think D&D was written as a story creation game,

I think you're probably right. Then again, I doubt the guy who sold George Washington Carver his peanuts envisioned most of the 300 uses for them, either. It's almost as if the peanut is especially versatile and GWC was just plain better than the rest of us when it came to utilizing peanuts. But for some reason it's taboo in the RPG community to make the exact same observations--that some games are just deliver more than others, in some cases able to do everything those other games can do and then some, and some GMs are just better than the rest (rather than holding equal opinions) and can really make the RPGs they run shine. There's no vitriol over peanut oil. Maybe the answer to the OPs question is that there's no room for honesty in gamer culture so instead passive-aggressivism builds to the point of ludicrous infighting.

QuoteAt the same time, war games and the rpgs that grew from them have a low tolerance for contrivance. The culture is much more "what if?" and "you are there" than "let's have a good story". Again, that's how I read White Box and AD&D back in the 70s,

I agree with you 100% here. Forget RPGs. I fucking can't stand contrivance, even in the context of reading a story or watching a movie. I'll roll my eyes every time.

Now I WILL say "Let's have a good story." Absolutely. But the question that inevitably follows is, "Okay. How?"

And that's what is answered by the choice of RPG. Not what or why. What the goal is or why we're playing is going to be personal to each group. Each player in the group may in fact have a different what or why in mind. Why's can be anything. "Because fuck you, that's why" is a perfectly legitimate answer. And yet I don't recall that being on the allowable list of creative agendas. I don't see anyone insisting there are "Because fuck you, that's why" games and the attendant debates of whether or not they fit under the umbrella of RPGs.

How's, on the other hand, are testable. Did this procedure or this set of rules help me get what I wanted out of the experience? Yes or no? Two people, playing the exact same game with the exact same play goal in mind might give different answers. It would be ludicrous to think the one who said "No" should stick to playing with the rules because they are alleged to have been designed with his play goal in mind. Or to stop playing a game that is fun because it is deigned to have a different play goal than his. And so maybe this answers the OP's question. Because it just doesn't make sense to define or categorize games according to their ostensible play goals and the people who buy that theory hook line and sinker are bound to clash with people who've experienced a very different reality.

Quoteand although it's possible I was bringing something external to the texts, I think it's more likely that a close reading will support the conclusion that more had to be added and subtracted to get "story creation" than to get "world simulation". It's just that the population at large, and the Red Box generation, had cultural training that made it easier and more attractive to perform those adjustments.

Here's the thing. To me, a good story needs a certain level of world simulation. Maybe it doesn't have to be absolute. But it needs a lot of it. Enough so the story doesn't feel contrived. Enough so the audience can see, given the characters, motivation, and circumstance, how the conclusion is actually a logical one. I feel the rules already being 80% of the way there re: world simulation, from the perspective of someone with my tastes and demands in story, the heavy lifting is already done. With the reasonable detail the rules provide in terms of how these things play out and a monster manual with 100+ monsters, I am provided with great content to populate the world and a means by which to anticipate how things will play out. All I need to do is think two moves ahead in my initial set-up, then just let it play out. To me, that's less of a leap than bridging that last 20% to total world simulation.

When I look up Orc and I read this in the description, "If the orcs are not in their lair there is a 20% chance they will be escorting a train of 1-6 carts and 10-60 slave bearers bringing supplies and loot to their chief or to a stronger orc tribe. The carts will hold goods worth from 10 to 1,000 gold pieces, and each slave will bear goods worth from 5 to 30 gold pieces. If such a train is indicated, double the number of leaders and assistants, add 10 normal orcs for each cart in the train, and a subchief with 5-30 guards will always be in charge" it's hard not to imagine the story possibilities by simply staying true to this world simulation.

So maybe this answers the OP's question--by remaining cloistered in their own "game styles" they have no idea what they're missing out on and remain convinced that "the other side" has nothing of value to add, leaving each to believe they see clear how their stuff would enhance the other guy's game that they are dumbfounded at how foolish and ignorant people can be.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981902From the very beginnings back in 74' or so I recall playing sessions including comments like this from players...

"Oh, you know what would be cool? What if the Inn is really a beached old pirate ship and the retired captain is now the Inn Keeper!"

To which the GM might reply "Yeah, cool idea sure!" or maybe "Nah, neat idea though."

We didnt even know what a "story game" was but the idea of everyone having the potential for adding elements to the game at times didnt seem like heresy. At least some of these games mentioned have a mechanic for controllling it.

Do does OD&D. The mechanic in OD&D and most RPGs is the DM who decides if that idea is plausible or even possible in the setting.

QuoteThe PCs are heroes afterall and throughout endless examples from fiction we find that good things happen to heroes - they are must lucky, fated or what have you. I think that sort of things adds to the experience of playing, in moderation. I dont hold it against anyone for feeling differently though, to either extreme.

It adds to the feeling that the world runs on story logic rather than on a self-consistent world logic. Whether one finds that to be good or bad is a matter of what sort of setting one enjoys.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

I then said:

QuoteExactly this, pure sandbox play completely resembles real life in this respect.

Because I agreed with Zevious Zoquis.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;981790For interpretations of 'real life' that assume a mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe, I suppose. :)

I am struggling to make sense of your comment. First because it is not on topic with what Zevious Zoquis and I were talking about. Although, I suppose that it would be remotely possible for a quasi "sandbox to be "mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe" but that would not be a real sandbox and IMO would not be much fun for the ref to run or for the player to play.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;981906Absolutely. It's the group your playing with, not the system that determines your enjoyment.

An arsehole is just as capable of dominating a 'narrative' RPG as any other.

Dominating a "narrative" RPG would be much easier than an OD&D game (or similar games) with a good Ref. If the ref is the bad guy in this regard, find another game.

Quote from: Bren;981935Do does OD&D. The mechanic in OD&D and most RPGs is the DM who decides if that idea is plausible or even possible in the setting.
It adds to the feeling that the world runs on story logic rather than on a self-consistent world logic. Whether one finds that to be good or bad is a matter of what sort of setting one enjoys.

I would amend this to say: So does OD&D. The mechanic in OD&D and most RPGs is the Ref/DM who decides if that idea is plausible or even possible in the setting.It adds to the feeling that the world runs on a self-consistent world logic. Whether one finds that to be good or bad is a matter of what sort of setting one enjoys.

With the revisions I can agree with it on this basis. IMO OD&D is about self-consistent world logic and has nothing whatsoever to do with story logic.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981941I then said:
Because I agreed with Zevious Zoquis.

  I am struggling to make sense of your comment. First because it is not on topic with what Zevious Zoquis and I were talking about. Although, I suppose that it would be remotely possible for a quasi "sandbox to be "mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe" but that would not be a real sandbox and IMO would not be much fun for the ref to run or for the player to play.

He's a theist making an ontological joke.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981943Agree with the quote as edited by me.

It's more polite (and less confusing when trying to figure out who said what) to just make the comment yourself rather than to edit what I said in that way. You could just say

QuoteIt adds to the feeling that the world runs on a self-consistent world logic. Whether one finds that to be good or bad is a matter of what sort of setting one enjoys.

(Sorry to skip over your response, Lunamancer; that's a lot to digest and respond to usefully, in turn.)

Bren, RGrove, I think more to the point, in D&D players can suggest whatever they like, but the rules don't give them narrative control. It's not even a case of GM veto--it's not like a game where a player can say, "I'll spend a Luck point to find a Holy Avenger sword" and then there's an arbitrary escape clause for the GM to stop them.

Also, while most games I've seen that do have a mechanic for player narrative control do have a veto clause,  some treat it as no big deal--"of course the GM has final say", in effect--while others, which I would put further on SG end of the spectrum, maximize the prerogative of the players and give an impression that there are very few circumstances in which the GM should veto. Further along the spectrum perhaps are games which explicitly make the veto a limited resource (although, even then, there will likely be an out clause or safeword where the GM can say, "I'm not even going to spend a point to negate that--try again"). And finally you would have games where you really have no recourse other than pleading--Polaris is one, although it's truly GMless. In Polaris, by the formal rules, if two players can't agree what happens after going through the various resolution steps, a die roll will resolve the difference. I seem to recall that The Shab al-Hiri Roach has a similar rule.

This is quite different from D&D even though in each and every case, social interaction and even social blackmail can in theory be invoked to try to guide the course of the game. Don't like the DM? Walk. Want to keep your players? Do things they like. Or in a notionally GM-less game--a dominant personality could force the game to conform to their vision, or even railroad the storyline. But these are extreme and absurd cases, illustrating the point that whatever happens socially, the rules do distinguish games in terms of authority over the game world.

Quote from: Arminius;981955Bren, RGrove, I think more to the point, in D&D players can suggest whatever they like, but the rules don't give them narrative control. It's not even a case of GM veto--it's not like a game where a player can say, "I'll spend a Luck point to find a Holy Avenger sword" and then there's an arbitrary escape clause for the GM to stop them.

Agreed.

In some games there are rules that grant the players some authority over the game world. In OD&D and other more traditional games there was no rule that gave a player any authority over the game world outside of what actions his character could attempt. The DM/GM would then arbitrate the outcome of that action either by applying the systems rules (for combat as an example), by improvising a rule ("roll a D20, if it is less than or equal to your strength you can lift that big rock"), or by fiat ("the king says, 'No, handsome stranger, I won't abdicate my throne in favor of you").

Similarly in some narrative games there are rules that grant the player authority over how the success or failure of their action is described (Player: Yay! I roll a Mighty Success. I cut the Orc Chief in half and awed by my prowess the other Orcs all run away). Typically in traditional games the rules do not give the player that authority.

Quote from: Bren;981949He's a theist making an ontological joke.

Apparently I did not see any humor in it.:D

Quote from: Bren;981951It's more polite (and less confusing when trying to figure out who said what) to just make the comment yourself rather than to edit what I said in that way. You could just say

QuoteIt adds to the feeling that the world runs on a self-consistent world logic. Whether one finds that to be good or bad is a matter of what sort of setting one enjoys.

Point taken. I went back and edited my post, please take a look.

Quote from: Bren;981949He's a theist making an ontological joke.

  Partially a joke, partially an attempt to highlight that the 'living world sandbox' promoted so often here does carry with it certain assumptions about the world and the people in it that may not suit all genres and flavors of game/world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981917Id have to disagree. In my experience Ive had some great games with assholes because.. well it was a good game, whereas a crappy game is just crappy no matter who you play with.

My experience is just the opposite.  As Kyle Aaron says, "People first."

Quote from: rgrove0172;981902From the very beginnings back in 74' or so I recall playing sessions including comments like this from players...

"Oh, you know what would be cool? What if the Inn is really a beached old pirate ship and the retired captain is now the Inn Keeper!"

To which the GM might reply "Yeah, cool idea sure!" or maybe "Nah, neat idea though."

We didnt even know what a "story game" was but the idea of everyone having the potential for adding elements to the game at times didnt seem like heresy. At least some of these games mentioned have a mechanic for controllling it. Personally as GM I kind of resist players monkeying with my setting but dont take issue with them having a bit of narrative control over minor elements. (ie. the shop keeper is working late and will open even at the late hour, it begins to rain and helps cover their tracks, the barmaid happens to recognize one of the PCs from when she worked in a nearby town etc.)

The PCs are heroes afterall and throughout endless examples from fiction we find that good things happen to heroes - they are must lucky, fated or what have you. I think that sort of things adds to the experience of playing, in moderation. I dont hold it against anyone for feeling differently though, to either extreme.

1) The difference is between suggestion and mandate.  "Does it rain to cover our tracks?" vs "It does rain to cover our tracks!"  In Greyhawk I was the first person to actually come up with a name for a temple instead of "the Lawful temple."  Gary liked it, so "First Church of Crom, Scientist" stuck.  But it was not my right to insist on it.

2)  As soon as the world starts reacting as a storyland instead of "this is what would rationally happen," I'm out the door.  NOTHING will turn me off faster than "making a cool story" meaning something illogical happens.  Mileage et cetera.

Yeah, and the "making a cool story" issue can extend beyond "is this rational/plausible?"

It's been argued many times (e.g. back in the day when people were arguing about Theatrix on Usenet) that patterns of events can drift into story time even if they're individually plausible. Yes, a courier can lose the secret plans at an inn, but it's not something that happens every day. A series of events that are possible, plausible, yet unlikely, will arouse suspicion. Similar for events that could happen but seem to happen all too conveniently in a manner that steers the action along a predictable plot line, or even along a distinguishable arc of tension and pacing. In theory you can't prove the GM is doing it or not doing it, but in reality, I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Not least because it appears in many GMing manuals and guidelines.

I'm not sure I always dislike story conventions but they can be a bait and switch if you go into the game expecting to deal with the situation from the PC's POV and find instead that dramatic concerns are what are really steering the action. (Same for games where every situation leads to a finely-balanced fight. But that's taking us back to Usenet circa 1995.)

You can talk agendas and techniques forever, but in the end, you'll get nowhere because to differentiate between different types of games, you have to look at game mechanics.  You can have a table that every player and GM are working towards creating a story while playing, it doesn't make the game they are playing a storygame.

Damn, Arminius, why did you have to remind me about Theatrix and r.g.f.advocacy? I had successfully repressed that knowledge ...

Quote from: Arminius;982064I'm not sure I always dislike story conventions but they can be a bait and switch if you go into the game expecting to deal with the situation from the PC's POV and find instead that dramatic concerns are what are really steering the action. (Same for games where every situation leads to a finely-balanced fight. But that's taking us back to Usenet circa 1995.)

Actually, I think it takes us back to 1980, with these theories about Power Gaming, Role-Playing, Wargaming, and Story Telling - and the conflicts between them.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

Quote from: jhkim;982101Actually, I think it takes us back to 1980, with these theories about Power Gaming, Role-Playing, Wargaming, and Story Telling - and the conflicts between them.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

Which, for all its deliberate exaggeration, is STILL probably the best summarization of the situation.

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: jhkim;982101Actually, I think it takes us back to 1980, with these theories about Power Gaming, Role-Playing, Wargaming, and Story Telling - and the conflicts between them.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

Not exactly, unless I'm misremembering that article. There are a couple things that really stand out about those 1994-5 discussions. One was the heated arguments over whether a GM could steer play along dramatic pathways without the players noticing--a debate that's irresolvable in theory.

The other was the way that "gamism" was an afterthought, the same way it was just now when I brought it up just to cover my bases. "Game" interests are almost never the focus of these discussions, but many of the same points apply--at least the ones about GM manipulation vs predictability, and dissociated mechanics.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982104... which you can tell isn't his original post on the topic because the very first sentence in the thread references the fact that he's talking about the original post. You can also tell because the two posts are dated.

Nobody gives a fuck about the 'original post'. The point of contention is in the link provided.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982104... which you can tell isn't his original post on the topic because the very first sentence in the thread references the fact that he's talking about the original post. You can also tell because the two posts are dated.

The original post was in the marginalia on lumply's "Anyway" blog. Why does it matter?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981902The PCs are heroes afterall and throughout endless examples from fiction we find that good things happen to heroes - they are must lucky, fated or what have you.

And that's a difference in philosophy even within "traditional" games: do you survive because you're heroes, or are you heroes because you survived? In other words, do we make rules so that the PCs will be advantaged or lucky, or do we just make rules that seem reasonable and just wait and see which PCs get lucky?

In my last campaign, in the final fight all the PCs were struck down, as well as the evil leader, and a party henchman a paladin Ivyst took the evil artifact and tossed it into the lava... they hope. And the players said, "holy shit, all this time we were her henchmen." I hadn't planned that at all, obviously. But the players were cool with it.

And this division within traditional games also highlights a traditional and storygame difference: is "story" something you try to make happen, or is it something you made up to explain the random crazy shit afterwards? Is "story" before and during, or only after the in-game events? Is "story" something you try to make happen, or is it an emergent property, or is it just a post hoc rationalisation?

You're heroes because you've survived.

Who's Luke, who's Wedge, who's Porkins, who's Biggs?  We won't know until after we play.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982148You're heroes because you've survived.

Who's Luke, who's Wedge, who's Porkins, who's Biggs?  We won't know until after we play.

^This. :)

Quote from: -E.;981904The problem with Ron's formulation around "heartbreakers" isn't that it's not presented diplomatically -- or that it's disrespectful, it's that it's a ridiculous and naive way of understanding game design.

He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs. This is a novel thing to be frustrated about given the relative commercial and critical success of many of these games and the ultimate failure of his ideas and his games.

Of course a lot of people who picked up on the nomenclature use the term "heartbreaker" in much less specific ways -- to describe any game they find derivative. In this way, it's very much like his GNS stuff -- functionally and intellectually incoherent, but great for snubbing other games and gamers.

Cheers,
-E.

I haven't encountered anyone who found the heartbreaker essay offensive. I guess I haven't probed enough into the far reaches of RPG snowflakery.

Seems pretty clear to me he means games that were built off a D&D base even if it made little semse for what they were trying to do or were games that were D&D 'but done right' which just made them redundant.

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: Justin Alexander;982199Okay, so when you claim that he was only talking about Vampire: The Masquerade system with his "brain damage" comments, we should understand that to mean he was only talking about Vampire: The Masquerade if you're only very selectively quoting later conversations about the "brain damage" (because even in the thread you link to, he explicitly mentions AD&D, Champions, and others) and explicitly ignore his original comments?

He directly referred to Vampire, because he had a particular beef with the 'storytelling' moniker. His references to AD&D and Champions were merely to support his contention that Vampire was of the same ilk, and as a consequence was being somehow duplicitous for calling itself a 'storytelling game'.

Frankly, you are just being a troll here anyway - you're making no salient point here. The link has been provided, people can read it for themselves.

Quote from: Voros;982177I haven't encountered anyone who found the heartbreaker essay offensive. I guess I haven't probed enough into the far reaches of RPG snowflakery.

Seems pretty clear to me he means games that were built off a D&D base even if it made little semse for what they were trying to do or were games that were D&D 'but done right' which just made them redundant.

You're exactly right.

He had these weird, idiosyncratic ideas about how RPGs should be designed and so when he saw people who built on the foundation of the most popular RPG of all time, instead of his ideas, he had his heart broken.

It was strange. And -- for people building games -- terrible advice. As we've seen (both recently and at the time) there is a place in RPGing, both artistically and commercially for both "D&D done right" and games that use D&D as a baseline even if they're trying to "do" something else (whatever that means). While he's over there having his heart broken there are innumerable riffs on D&D and people love them.

He was a font of bad advice for game developers, because he couldn't see past his own advocacy -- one of the worst failed-detours of RPG evolution.

Cheers,
-E.

RE was all over the place and prone to grandiose, oblique pronouncements which would serve as mirrors for both his fans and detractors, and let him say in the end that he was right all along--having merely been misinterpreted.

In the case of the brain damage quotes, in the first quote he doesn't quite single out D&D, giving only a timeline. The later thread blames trends that allegedly started in AD&D 2e and "certain applications of Champions". One can only guess what he's talking about and how widely he'd cast blame. The second statement might be retreat from the first--which could be construed as blaming the original Blackmoor campaign, or the publication of Brown Box D&D, but might refer to a module published in 1979. Most likely it refers to the beginnings of "module-based" play and whenever modules or module series started to contain fixed plot progressions; he probably had in mind his essay on D&D history which (also obliquely) refers to the publication of tournament modules, probably the G-D-Q series. I can't say anything about Champions, but the 2E comment may be a result of getting the timing off on the publication of Dragonlance (1984; 2e was published 1989), or maybe RE considered 2e to be the point at which "plotted" modules came to predominate.

About the heartbreaker essay, I'm a bit rushed but I think if you look at Part II, you'll find RE wasn't just criticizing games that had minor mechanical innovations but pretty much any game whose subject matter and overall game structure was similar to D&D. I.e., fantasy, where you play a bunch of adventurers. If you look at the games themselves I'll bet you'll find some aren't that close to D&D mechanically.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982148You're heroes because you've survived.

Who's Luke, who's Wedge, who's Porkins, who's Biggs?  We won't know until after we play.

And even then, things may change so that our views of characters are altered as well. Just look at Luke. A new GM comes along with a new story and suddenly Luke's player isn't so happy with his character, but all he can do is play the game as best he can.

Quote from: Voros;981855Perfect example of someone projecting negative traits onto others because they like something you don't. Based on exactly nothing as well I'd say.

I said nothing negative about storygamers here, nor about Instagramers for that matter. Unless you consider being "different" from adventure-gamers and diners to be "negative". But then, that's your projection, not mine.

An entirely different activity, using the same name as another activity, is part of what I think causes the hate (that's what this thread's supposedly about, right?). You may have just demonstrated that point.

You did say something about them doing it for vanity rather than because they enjoy it.

Quote from: Arminius;982265You did say something about them doing it for vanity rather than because they enjoy it.

What I said was that for some Instagramers the picture had become more important than the meal, and as such I would call that activity "photography" rather than "dining". I don't judge which of those activities to be superior, or in vain.

I did use the phrase "status symbol" in the next paragraph, but did not intend it in the context of anyone's motivation, rather my intent was to describe what the end result of storygaming might look like to the adventure-gamer. My apologies for any confusion there.

It was clearly a slam and a slam against their character, you also managed to imply it had to do with being millenials (these 'kids' and their instagram) so you worked in the trifecta of old man whining. To claim otherwise now is disingenuous.

Quote from: -E.;982222You're exactly right.

He had these weird, idiosyncratic ideas about how RPGs should be designed and so when he saw people who built on the foundation of the most popular RPG of all time, instead of his ideas, he had his heart broken.

It was strange. And -- for people building games -- terrible advice. As we've seen (both recently and at the time) there is a place in RPGing, both artistically and commercially for both "D&D done right" and games that use D&D as a baseline even if they're trying to "do" something else (whatever that means). While he's over there having his heart broken there are innumerable riffs on D&D and people love them.

He was a font of bad advice for game developers, because he couldn't see past his own advocacy -- one of the worst failed-detours of RPG evolution.

Cheers,
-E.

A very odd interpretation but you clearly hold personal animus against him.

I think the interpretation is broadly correct. RE wanted games designed "coherently", and any game with potential to be used according to his idea of "narrativism" was defective if it didn't fully live up to that vision, or subsequently deviated from it. (E.g. his criticism of Heroquest 1e vs Hero Wars.) RE expressed happiness at the thought of video games pulling people out of the tabletop hobby so that they'd no longer exert influence on the culture.

Later, I think he admitted that Forge-style gaming wasn't going to take the world by storm, and still later he tried to take credit for the OSR, but by that time nobody was paying much attention. Instead, his original theories keep churning up naive true believers like the one cited earlier in the thread.

I've really enjoyed this thread. I've chatted with Ron and he's always been personally nice to me. I think his Sorcerer RPG and supplements are terrific, but his GNS ideas are kind of weird.

The biggest surprise to me is that most people here have a completely different idea of what StoryGames are than I do. Here, most of you consider any game that is structured and kind of railroady to be a storygame. I had always considered games to be more story-gamey if they:

1. focused on themes that would be normally considered not gamable/geek oriented (you're maids, your monks dying in a siege somewhere);
2. were not designed or used for long term campaigns;
3. moved narrative control of things outside player characters to from the GM to the players or "table consensus"

Turns out my definition is idiosyncratic! You guys are the consensus.

However, I'm not sure that structured games are as terrible as you say. It's my impression that the vast majority of our hobby is doing just that (buying those Pathfinder campaigns, D&D campaigns, or plot point things) and using that. They probably have a lot of fun, and having run that stuff, my players had lots of fun.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;982362I've really enjoyed this thread. I've chatted with Ron and he's always been personally nice to me. I think his Sorcerer RPG and supplements are terrific, but his GNS ideas are kind of weird.

The biggest surprise to me is that most people here have a completely different idea of what StoryGames are than I do. Here, most of you consider any game that is structured and kind of railroady to be a storygame. I had always considered games to be more story-gamey if they:

1. focused on themes that would be normally considered not gamable/geek oriented (you're maids, your monks dying in a siege somewhere);
2. were not designed or used for long term campaigns;
3. moved narrative control of things outside player characters to from the GM to the players or "table consensus"

Turns out my definition is idiosyncratic! You guys are the consensus.

The consensus here, maybe but IME, your description is pretty widely held.

Yea, it's kind of weird because many games I'd consider Storygames aren't from the "storygames are planned story" feeling, since they're crazy random stuff since the player's have so much narrative control.

What about Prince Valiant, the Story-Telling Game?

Get out the long knives!

"Storygames are railroads" is idiotic, the two terms are practically antonyms.
"Storygames vs. roleplaying games" is also not really much of anything.

The real rancor these days is about roleplaying games that add in increasing amounts of OOC mechanics, usually to grant some form of narrative control, especially in long-standing IPs that historically were supported by systems without a large degree of OOC mechanics.  In addition to OOC metagame point economies or narrative control mechanics, games like Warhammer 3rd, FFG Star Wars and 2d20 also have "funky dice", in 2 of the 3 cases the dice symbols there to provide narrative results baked in.

So, OOC mechanics that used to be something easily curtailed or excised (like Fate, Luck, or Karma Point usage) instead become the foundation of the system unable to avoid without major rewriting of the system.

If a system forces me to make an OOC choice (which by definition is Not-Roleplaying) every time my character acts, isn't it really a bit of a misnomer to call it a roleplaying game, at least without some adjective or qualifier?  If not, then aren't we making the definition of RPG so broad as to be meaningless.

It doesn't help that pick any two games, one with not a single OOC mehchanic, and one chock full of them, you'll always have people claim there's absolutely no difference between the two.

The idea that story games are preplotted isn't really dominant here.

I think I missed the post explaining why anyone gives a hoot how another table plays its games. Can someone post a link?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;982380Yea, it's kind of weird because many games I'd consider Storygames aren't from the "storygames are planned story" feeling, since they're crazy random stuff since the player's have so much narrative control.

Any game or playstyle tha isn't wide open sandbox run in a "Let the dice fall where they may" style tends to get labeled "Story game" and/or the person a "storygamer" on this site. The general definition is tighter, IME.

For the most part, nobody does care. The idea that hostility to storygame approaches/mechanics/theories is an inquisition whose aim is to force people to play a certain way is a shameless canard.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;9823621. focused on themes that would be normally considered not gamable/geek oriented (you're maids, your monks dying in a siege somewhere);

"Monks dying in a siege somewhere" is one of the ideas I have warming up in the bullpen.

It's a good example of how difficult it is to untangle what sort of game this is because with that scenario, story is the last thing I have on my mind. I actually envision that scenario to be pure hack-n-slay. Maybe even a competitive wargame if I can get enough players to play both sides. The reason I want to play it out is because one of the adventure locales I have in mind for my main campaign is the old monastery where said siege took place, and I want the design to be, I guess, organic in a way. So I actually want to play out the siege so I know where all the skeletons should be placed, and which hidden treasures, if any, were found and which were stolen. Arrows, broken weapons, odd supplies. Maybe certain areas of it are torched. Maybe a stone wall was taken down. All for the sake of making this locale as immersive an environment as possible.

Ultimately, there probably will be a story put to this locale-based adventure. At this point, I have no idea what it is, and I won't until I've had a chance to play a few things out.

Quote from: Arminius;982398For the most part, nobody does care. The idea that hostility to storygame approaches/mechanics/theories is an inquisition whose aim is to force people to play a certain way is a shameless canard.

As is the idea the wicked storygamers are out to take over the hobby, kick in people's doors and burn their sandbox campaign notes. That's just paranoid. Most gamers are, at most, curious what others are do it.

As far anyone claiming there's an inquisition or conspiracy against storygames... who has? The claim that persecution is going has been made but I haven't seen that but people saying that storygames, differing playstyles, etc  get crappy, overly hostile reactions on this site.

Most others I've been the war is over if anyone there knew about it in the first place. The attitude towards not only storygames but differences in playstyle of practically sort around here sucks.  That's what I've been saying not making claims of persecution.

Quote from: Lunamancer;982404"Monks dying in a siege somewhere" is one of the ideas I have warming up in the bullpen.

That is a situation. Setting up a campaign around a specific situation to see what happens is not a campaign focused on the participant collaborating on creating a story (i.e. a story game).

If however the referee had a particular outcome in mind for "monks dying in a siege". It still not a storygame but the referee is railroading the campaign. If however the group decided to collaborate to create a narrative about monks dying in a seige by using the mechanics of a wargame (the mechanics behind all RPGs). Then they are playing story game. Finally if the group decides to divide into multiple factions each player playing an individual character with the focus on winning by defeating one's opponents along with a referee to handle rulings and the setting then they are playing a wargame campaign. All four situation can occur with the same damn set of rules. What makes something X is what the campaign focuses not the mechanics.

Quote from: Nexus;982405As is the idea the wicked storygamers are out to take over the hobby, kick in people's doors and burn their sandbox campaign notes.

I agree that it's an unlikely conspiracy theory, and I'll own that Omega, at least, has said some things in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37424-Why-the-hate-for-narrative-story-elements-in-a-RPG&p=981286&viewfull=1#post981286) that are echoes of that idea.

On the other hand...

QuoteAs far anyone claiming there's an inquisition or conspiracy against storygames... who has?

Quote from: Dumarest;982391I think I missed the post explaining why anyone gives a hoot how another table plays its games. Can someone post a link?

(Maybe I misunderstood the intent here, but I took it as assuming that people really do care in a busybody way.)

Quote from: Krimson;981393How are you supposed to stigmatize Badwrongfun Gamers if you don't have a convenient box to put them in?

And there you have it. Not the first time, by a long shot.

Now, Pundit's famous for claiming that "the Swine" have a goal of subverting the hobby, so I don't mean to sweep that under the rug, either.

However, for me, the issues are:

• Annoying proselytism
• Tiresome, over-blown claims
• A long history of disputatiousness based on fallacies, including...
• ...assuming all game[r]s are storygame[r]s at heart
• ...denying, pathologizing, or actively obscuring the concept of "immersion" (the cognitive sense of 1st-person, in-character point of view)
• ...claiming that OOC mechanics ("director stance" & to an extent "author stance") only affect "immersion" due to unfamiliarity
• ...special pleading on issues such as the effect of GM contrivance on immersion
• ...claiming that mechanics such as "daily powers" are intelligible to PCs in the same manner as they are to players
• ...claiming that analytical abstractions ("immersion", "dissociation", distinctions between game types) are a form of hate speech

To me these aren't tools of subversion, but they make me want to cut short discussions where these sorts of argument appear, since they tend to derail and obscure conversations that are actually useful for 1st-person POV game-play.

Quote from: estar;982413That is a situation. Setting up a campaign around a specific situation to see what happens is not a campaign focused on the participant collaborating on creating a story (i.e. a story game).

If however the referee had a particular outcome in mind for "monks dying in a siege". It still not a storygame but the referee is railroading the campaign. If however the group decided to collaborate to create a narrative about monks dying in a seige by using the mechanics of a wargame (the mechanics behind all RPGs). Then they are playing story game. Finally if the group decides to divide into multiple factions each player playing an individual character with the focus on winning by defeating one's opponents along with a referee to handle rulings and the setting then they are playing a wargame campaign. All four situation can occur with the same damn set of rules. What makes something X is what the campaign focuses not the mechanics.

I think you need to quote the post in its entirety. I stated a very specific purpose I had in mind with that scenario, and it wasn't a story at all. It actually isn't any of the things you list either. There's no campaign set up around it, the scenario itself is isolated. There's no particular outcome in mind--for my purposes, if I knew the exact outcome, I would have no need to run the scenario. There is no railroad. A narrative is bound to emerge from it, but in this case the narrative isn't the purpose of the thing.

As for the wargame? Again, I don't know how many people would be playing it yet. If I have plenty of players, I'll have players on each side. If not, just one side, though I haven't even decided which yet. In any event, though, if individual characters aren't trying to "win" (whatever "winning" means to that character) we may as well just flush the whole thing down the toilet as far as I'm concerned. It isn't role-play if characters aren't doing their damnedest to achieve their "win" or the closest thing to it in the situation. The story is shit if the characters don't resemble real people in that regard. The game is shit if there's no striving.

The one and only purpose I have in mind in running this scenario is to find out where the bodies lie, what if any secret treasure is discovered, what's left behind, broken weapons, loose arrows, that way when I do make this location (not situation; location) actually connect to a campaign, the place will provide an immersive environment that was the result of an "organic process." Nothing about the location ultimately attached to the campaign in and of itself is a story. It's simply part of the world. But could serve as the backdrop for a story. That story has not yet been created, and that story has absolutely zero to do with my post you quoted. It was never held up as en example of a story game.

Quote from: Arminius;982422I agree that it's an unlikely conspiracy theory, and I'll own that Omega, at least, has said some things in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37424-Why-the-hate-for-narrative-story-elements-in-a-RPG&p=981286&viewfull=1#post981286) that are echoes of that idea.

On the other hand...



 (Maybe I misunderstood the intent here, but I took it as assuming that people really do care in a busybody way.)

And there you have it. Not the first time, by a long shot.
.

That didn't read as a claim there's a conspiracy to me. But an accusation that "storygamer" is a convenient label (box) to slap people into, as a pejorative around here, an excuse to mock and dismiss them out of hand. Bad attitude doesn't imply conspiracy just a bad attitude. The generalizations thrown around about other play styles aren't exactly flattering either: coddling PCs, railroads, being somehow more immature or less manly if you don't got zero to hero, etc. Some of those getting slapped with title "storygamer" and thus caught up in smearing aren't even playing games most would have even think of as story games.

Quote from: Lunamancer;982423The one and only purpose I have in mind in running this scenario is to find out where the bodies lie, what if any secret treasure is discovered, what's left behind, broken weapons, loose arrows, that way when I do make this location (not situation; location) actually connect to a campaign, the place will provide an immersive environment that was the result of an "organic process." Nothing about the location ultimately attached to the campaign in and of itself is a story. It's simply part of the world. But could serve as the backdrop for a story. That story has not yet been created, and that story has absolutely zero to do with my post you quoted. It was never held up as en example of a story game.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What you described in my book is not a story game in anyway shape or form. That setting something as a specific situation doesn't make it some kind of collaborative story. Then I got carried away and expanded my thought to the more general case. That it is intent that make a campaign a roleplaying game, wargame, story game, a railroad, etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982388The real rancor these days is about roleplaying games that add in increasing amounts of OOC mechanics, usually to grant some form of narrative control, especially in long-standing IPs that historically were supported by systems without a large degree of OOC mechanics.

Agreed.
I don't really care what other people are playing... until it impacts the games I like, I'm fine. But then I see the new version of Call of Cthulhu with more narrative elements shoveled in and I balk (and will not buy it, despite having bought the previous editions).
If someone wants a story-game version of CoC go make it (and people have), but don't change the existing game to chase that trend.
(I realize the changes to CoC are comparatively minor, but the new authors do seem to be pushing a more narrative approach).

Quote from: Simlasa;982441Agreed.
I don't really care what other people are playing... until it impacts the I like, I'm fine. But then I see the new version of Call of Cthulhu with more narrative elements shoveled in and I balk (and will not buy it, despite having bought the previous editions).
If someone wants a story-game version of CoC go make it (and people have), but don't change the existing game to chase that trend.
(I realize the changes to CoC are comparatively minor, but the new authors do seem to pushing a more narrative approach).

That might be the case, but it could just be that the writers were applying house rules to situations that arose in community discussion. It's difficult to completely place the influences.

I still found the changes to be heavy handed though, and the impact they may wanted to achieve could have been done through more nuanced and subtle adjustments. I thought the system developed in Delta Green was more to my tastes, even though they have rules for relationships and all that yada too.

My problem with Call of Cthulhu 7E was mainly that the rules were clunky - the adding of unnecessary extra stats (Build, Luck, etc), the whole/half/fifth presentation of skills, the convoluted combat and chases chapters, the funky bonus/penalty dice and the general emphasis of action over investigation which had been a marked aspect of previous editions. Even sound ideas like pushing a roll, were presented in such a verbose way that it made it seem like a complicated system. All of these things could have been done in a much more concise and streamlined way I felt. Still, it looked pretty though.

Quote from: estar;982433Sorry I wasn't clear. What you described in my book is not a story game in anyway shape or form. That setting something as a specific situation doesn't make it some kind of collaborative story. Then I got carried away and expanded my thought to the more general case. That it is intent that make a campaign a roleplaying game, wargame, story game, a railroad, etc.

Again, I wasn't describing anything there as a story game. In this case, I specifically have gone out of my way to cast story aside--oh, there'll still be one, there always is. It's just not a concern. It's a method for designing a set piece for future use in a completely separate campaign, nothing more.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;982445That might be the case, but it could just be that the writers were applying house rules to situations that arose in community discussion. It's difficult to completely place the influences.

It's less overt in the specific rules than it is in the GM advice... and from what I've read the original draft was more extreme, like with the luck mechanic.

Outside of luck points, which have been around since Ghostbusters and James Bond, what additions do you consider narrative in CoC 7e? I don't have much use for luck points in CoC but just ignore them and wouldn't consider them very heavy handed narrative OOC anyways.

Quote from: Voros;982512Outside of luck points, which have been around since Ghostbusters and James Bond, what additions do you consider narrative in CoC 7e? I don't have much use for luck points in CoC but just ignore them and wouldn't consider them very heavy handed narrative OOC anyways.

Perhaps ironically, I agree that given its themes and attempted mood a Luck points mechanics isn't fitting for CoC.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981398What is your native language?  Because I can't figure how you got there from here.

heh.

What Im saying is. "Why didnt you cry foul when Gary asked you if you wanted to explore Castle Greyhawk?" Theres no difference between that and asking the players of they want to go explore some module. The players commit to a course and may or may not see it to the end. They might say screw it and hie off to the forest to get laid by dryads.

Heck. OD&D came with the equivalent of a little two page module with that example dungeon.

Quote from: Voros;982512Outside of luck points, which have been around since Ghostbusters and James Bond, what additions do you consider narrative in CoC 7e? I don't have much use for luck points in CoC but just ignore them and wouldn't consider them very heavy handed narrative OOC anyways.

You mean Hero Points and Brownie Points! "Luck Points" are only for evil "storygames"! :D

Quote from: Voros;982290A very odd interpretation but you clearly hold personal animus against him.

Eh?

I don't know the man -- I just disagree with his ideas about RPGs. I can't disagree with him on game design without it being personal?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;982761Eh?

I don't know the man -- I just disagree with his ideas about RPGs. I can't disagree with him on game design without it being personal?

Cheers,
-E.

This is the Internet. Everything is personal. Nonstop, 24/7.

Quote from: -E.;982761Eh?

I don't know the man -- I just disagree with his ideas about RPGs. I can't disagree with him on game design without it being personal?

Cheers,
-E.

Most reasonable statement I've seen all day :cool:

Quote from: HorusArisen;982771Most reasonable statement I've seen all day :cool:

You should post a caveat that you're engaging your fellow argumentative-over-the-inconsequential types on therpgsite this morning. Of course you've seen little reasonable discussion. :D

Quote from: Dumarest;982776You should post a caveat that you're engaging your fellow argumentative-over-the-inconsequential types on therpgsite this morning. Of course you've seen little reasonable discussion. :D

I was was embracing my inner rpgsite poster. It was an amusing distraction.

Quote from: HorusArisen;982778I was was embracing my inner rpgsite poster. It was an amusing distraction.

Me too, sorry if I was a thorn in your side

Quote from: Dumarest;982780Me too, sorry if I was a thorn in your side

If I'm going to be a knob I deserve whatever response comes my way. So apologies all around :)

Quote from: HorusArisen;982778I was was embracing my inner rpgsite poster. It was an amusing distraction.

I tried to embrace mine but the little bastard kicked me in the balls, laughed and scampered into the ventilation system... and I think my wallets missing

Quote from: Nexus;982788I tried to embrace mine but the little bastard kicked me in the balls, laughed and scampered into the ventilation system... and I think my wallets missing

My little devil was trying to get me to 500 posts. Woo hoo.

What's a really good example of a narrative game? I was thinking Nobilus?

Quote from: HorusArisen;982794What's a really good example of a narrative game? I was thinking Nobilus?

While it's a fairly standard game in a lot of ways, 13th Age has a ton of narrative features for the players. Luckily they're easy enough to downplay or ignore if that's your preference, but they're there.

Quote from: Dumarest;982770This is the Internet. Everything is personal. Nonstop, 24/7.

I sometimes forget that.

Quote from: HorusArisen;982771Most reasonable statement I've seen all day :cool:

:: reads next few posts before replying ::

I'm sigged! I'm sigged! I'm famous!

:: runs around room ::
-E.

Quote from: Brand55;982819While it's a fairly standard game in a lot of ways, 13th Age has a ton of narrative features for the players. Luckily they're easy enough to downplay or ignore if that's your preference, but they're there.

Ah something more contemporary.

Can't say Ive read it but what sort of features are we talking about?

Quote from: HorusArisen;982823Ah something more contemporary.

Can't say Ive read it but what sort of features are we talking about?

Yes, please share, I've never heard of this game and frankly I don't know what people mean by a narrative or storytelling game unless they mean we're going to sit around and Round Robin what happens next.

Okay, 13th Age has a lot of similarities with D&D seeing as it was designed by two of the guys behind the 3rd and 4th editions of that game, so apart from using range bands in combat rather than discrete distances it basically works like a much-improved 4e D&D, in my opinion.

The narrative parts mostly come in at character creation and again a bit later. Characters have backgrounds (instead of a set list of skills) and something called "One Unique Thing," something that sets them apart from everyone else. So the player of a rogue-type might choose to put down "Exiled member of the Black Lotus guild of assassin's guild +4" as one of his backgrounds. That gives him a +4 bonus on rolls where he can explain how his background could come into play to help him, things like stalking a target stealthily and such. He can also use it for things like knowing about the city where that guild is located or even former targets, if the GM decides such uses sound good. Of course, there's no Black Lotus guild anywhere in the books; by putting setting elements in as part of their backgrounds, players effectively take part in world-building during character creation. Maybe the citizen of Horizon didn't have an assassin's guild before, but a player can change that.

The One Unique Thing takes that to an extreme since it can get as wild as the GM is willing to allow. I've seen OUT examples where characters were forcibly shapechanged dragons or the sole heir of the emperor. One was a dwarf with a clockwork heart. OUTs can be relatively ordinary, but again they allow players to alter the landscape of the game a lot. Having someone decide their OUT should be, "The last surviving elf," can have big repercussions in a fantasy game like 13th Age.

Finally, and perhaps the most outright narrative element, is something introduced with the GM's resource book called montages. In a typical game like D&D, when a journey happens the GM may have some encounters prepared or might roll randomly to see if the party runs into random stuff. This is done in 13th Age as well, but the GM is also encouraged to periodically use a montage. In a montage, the GM asks one of the players to present a problem that arises on the journey. The player to that person's left then narrates how he or she overcame that problem and presents a new one, and the cycle continues around the group so that the party (not the GM) collectively tells the story of their travel and the difficulties that they faced.

Quote from: -E.;982761Eh?

I don't know the man -- I just disagree with his ideas about RPGs. I can't disagree with him on game design without it being personal?

Cheers,
-E.

Sorry not buying it. You constantly framed your argument about what 'he' was doing suggesting he was some egomaniac who thought he'd replace D&D. Hence your misrepresentation of his fantasy heartbreaker essay. It was a relatively subtle (for RPGSite) ad hominem but is clearly there.

Dang, I left a section out of my previous post. Another bit I was going to mention are the Icon dice. Now, there are a lot of ways these can be used and interpreted, but basically they represent character relationships with the Icons, which are the Big NPCs of the setting (like Elminster in Forgotten Realms). They're d6s that are rolled periodically - a 6 means you get a boon while a 5 means you get a boon with some sort of string attached or other type of negative to it. Depending on how the GM decides to use these dice, players can suggest uses for these dice to get things like assistance, advice, or other sources of help related to their Icon relationships.

For example, say a player rolled a 6 on a die from his positive relationship with the Elf Queen of the setting. Later the party gets jumped in a forest clearing by a bunch of undead. The player could spend that 6 to narrate how the clearing was actually a battle site where a platoon of elite elven guards laid down their lives protecting the previous queen, and ever since the site has been suffused with the spirit of their sacrifice. Thus, that character and his allies could receive +1 AC for the rest of the battle.

Quote from: -E.;982822I sometimes forget that.



:: reads next few posts before replying ::

I'm sigged! I'm sigged! I'm famous!

:: runs around room ::
-E.

It's a shoddy prize but you won my internet today.

Quote from: Dumarest;982825Yes, please share, I've never heard of this game and frankly I don't know what people mean by a narrative or storytelling game unless they mean we're going to sit around and Round Robin what happens next.

I saw what you did there.

Quote from: Brand55;982838Finally, and perhaps the most outright narrative element, is something introduced with the GM's resource book called montages. In a typical game like D&D, when a journey happens the GM may have some encounters prepared or might roll randomly to see if the party runs into random stuff. This is done in 13th Age as well, but the GM is also encouraged to periodically use a montage. In a montage, the GM asks one of the players to present a problem that arises on the journey. The player to that person's left then narrates how he or she overcame that problem and presents a new one, and the cycle continues around the group so that the party (not the GM) collectively tells the story of their travel and the difficulties that they faced.

I'm not sure how well this activity would go in practice but it sounds a lot better to try to implement this than the One Unique Thing.

Quote from: Bren;982856I'm not sure how well this activity would go in practice but it sounds a lot better to try to implement this than the One Unique Thing.

It really just comes down to the group. Some would love it and have no problem, while other players would struggle with coming up with interesting tales or try to kill their first ancient dragon at 1st level. Ultimately, though, it's nice because groups who like it have it as a tool to use and those who don't can easily ignore it.

OUTs are a little trickier. I outright disallow truly insane stuff ("No, you can't play an elder demon just pretending to be a lowly human paladin to infiltrate the Golden Order. Again.") without a really good reason, and I'll veto stuff that clashes with my view of the world. No elf genocide on my watch. As long as you're upfront with the players about your expectations regarding the game and how much leeway they have, their shouldn't be too many problems. And for those who are fine with turning the players loose and seeing what craziness transpires, they have that option as well.

Seems a bit loosey goosey. My mate/player James would abuse the crap out of this.

If I let him.

The thread has been great, tons of good info. I have one last question I'd appreciate clarification on. In this post

 - [post deleted, my apologies - it referenced the recycling of game elements not used in a given session to a later time.)

The potential to recycle unused campaign material is mentioned. I assume that means moving a temple or something from an area not visited in the game to one that will be. Am I wrong? If I'm not then how exactly is that different from railroading?  

I ask because while I might nudge players in a given direction I would never move something or reuse something once it's part of the setting. The former is not desirable but permissible sometimes while the other just feels like cheating. My opinion of course.

I would never move something; it is cheating.  Now if the players are hunting for rumors, and I think this Temple of the Eager Virgin is a real cool adventure site, I might have rumors keep popping up.

And if your players aren't hunting for rumors in a sandbox, they should be.

Well sure but am I hearing that if the GM jotted down some ideas for a sea cave and the players never bite...he would keep the idea and present it again next time they are near the coast..elsewhere? That sounds like recycling to me, or similarly with a specific idea for an NPC. The party never meets the Tinkerer so he gets shelved until the next village etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982887The potential to recycle unused campaign material is mentioned. I assume that means moving a temple or something from an area not visited in the game to one that will be. Am I wrong? If I'm not then how exactly is that different from railroading?

I don't think I was seeing the link quite right. But moving a temple doesn't seem like the sort of thing I would do. Maybe back when I was in 8th or 9th grade when I thought I was really clever too I would do something like that. Now it's more like, if I've created this temple, and players didn't go there, I'd imagine there'd be a good number of features that a lot of temples might share in common. Secret escape passage for the high priest. An altar. A crypt beneath the temple. Cloisters. That sort of thing. The high priests of all these temples would probably be roughly in the same level range. The number of temple members might vary a little more, but still within a certain range. There'll probably still be temple protectors, but it might be Paladins in one the temple of the sun, Rangers in the temple of the moon, Assassins in the temple of Shadows, and Berserkers in the temple of gloom. In the temple of balance, regular fighters, but the priests are druids instead of clerics. There might be different pets depending on the terrain, culture, or deity. So if I didn't get to use the temple of the wolf, there's always the temple of the gargoyle, temple of the snake, temple of the scorpion, and temple of the spider.

I've read some "GM advice" that is all about just reskinning. That's a bit of an extreme, to just reskin everything. I feel with different skin should be some different mechanical impact. Wolf jaws lock, snakes constrict, spider webs entrap, scropions deliver poison, the gargoyle can fly and breath some funky stuff. And I feel the gargoyle's stone makeup should give it more defensive capacity, the scorpion's exoskeleton the second most, and so on. Enough has changed so your choice not to go to the temple of the wolf matters, even if you just end up at the temple of the gargoyle. But you still get to recycle quite a bit.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982899Well sure but am I hearing that if the GM jotted down some ideas for a sea cave and the players never bite...he would keep the idea and present it again next time they are near the coast..elsewhere? That sounds like recycling to me, or similarly with a specific idea for an NPC. The party never meets the Tinkerer so he gets shelved until the next village etc.

I haven't seen anyone saying to just pick up pieces completely and just shove them in front of the players until they get through the encounter you want. That's certainly not what I do.

Let's look at your sea cave example. Your group zigs instead of zags and thus misses it completely. Now, to them, the sea cave does not exist. You have it fixed in your head and that's fine, but they know nothing of it being there. So you pick up the detailed plans you had, the layout of the caves with the numbered sections and the traps, encounters, and other bits. Don't take those and just slap them down in front of the party. Let's say, a dozen sessions down the line, the group is trying to stop a bunch of goblinoids from raiding a small town, and to do so requires taking out their base in the mountains. And part of that happens to be underground.

Now you've got a chance to use some of that work that would have otherwise been wasted. Look at your maps and see if they need to be tweaked a little to shift from sea cave to underground cavern. Maybe what was a tidal pool becomes the pile of bones where the creatures throw their refuse, or a waterfall is replaced by a tattered banner and a secret entrance is added to the opposite wall. Traps can be changed up or moved around, enemy positions shifted to better reflect what some feral hobgoblins would do compared to demon-worshiping merfolk, for example. The point is, you can tweak an existing location to suit your needs in a fraction of the time it would take you to come up with something from scratch, and if you're a busy GM in a sandbox game that can be a lifesaver.

Or not.

Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

A large part of the referee's fun was assumed to be creating the world (a la M.A.R. Barker's world of Tekumel), so no prep was ever "wasted."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982924Or not.

Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

A large part of the referee's fun was assumed to be creating the world (a la M.A.R. Barker's world of Tekumel), so no prep was ever "wasted."

If you've got the time to do that, that's great. Dead serious on that. But not everyone does, especially as they get older and responsibilities change. I know I can't spend as much time today prepping for my games as I did 20 years ago, so being able to save time and not waste good gaming material is important.

The Railroad/Cheating portion of re-using comes in usually in the form of "Schrodinger's Ogre" or in this case Schrodinger's Sea Cave.  In the Railroading version, they can't miss the Sea Cave, because no matter what passage they take, they encounter the Sea Cave.  Technically not re-using, because everything gets used. (Note: This is why that guy stomped out of your Star Wars game, Grove. This what he thought you were doing).

A milder version of Schrodinger's Sea Cave is simply re-using as is.  Next time the characters need a Sea Cave, you dust off one they haven't seen yet, even if it is one that's supposed to be a hundred miles down the coast, and slap it down.  Now, this isn't necessarily railroading, there's a decent chance they'll miss this Sea Cave just like they did last time.  If you're not forcing them to see it, it isn't Railroading.  Is it cheating?  Well depends on the players I guess.  It's definitely cheating Setting Consistency, but unless you use it a second time, the players will never know (cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map :p).  If it saves you time, you're the one that has to look in that mirror.

I think the more standard form of re-using is doing what you would do if you bought a module and wanted to grab a map and encounters from it.  Do a tweak and reskin as Brand55 and Lunamancer are saying.   The original location is still there, the new one is ready to go and can'y be mistaken for the original.  No Harm, No Foul.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982899Well sure but am I hearing that if the GM jotted down some ideas for a sea cave and the players never bite...he would keep the idea and present it again next time they are near the coast..elsewhere? That sounds like recycling to me, or similarly with a specific idea for an NPC. The party never meets the Tinkerer so he gets shelved until the next village etc.

Its something I do allot, FWIW.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982924Or not.

Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

A large part of the referee's fun was assumed to be creating the world (a la M.A.R. Barker's world of Tekumel), so no prep was ever "wasted."

Plus, there might be a chance that some other group encounters the Sea Cave, and gets the treasure out of it, and the first group of players hear a rumor about it. :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;982941Plus, there might be a chance that some other group encounters the Sea Cave, and gets the treasure out of it, and the first group of players hear a rumor about it. :)

:D :D :D :D Which is the best of all.  Especially when the group who got it tell the group that didn't.  "Boy, you knuckleheads should have listened to old Gobby the Sailor at Dirty Mary's Crab Shack!"

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937(cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map :p).

I have an anti-poker face.  My thoughts are plain as day.  When I say "I cannot tell a lie" it's not because of any great moral strength, it's because I suck at it.

Quote from: Voros;982846Sorry not buying it. You constantly framed your argument about what 'he' was doing suggesting he was some egomaniac who thought he'd replace D&D. Hence your misrepresentation of his fantasy heartbreaker essay. It was a relatively subtle (for RPGSite) ad hominem but is clearly there.

... Where did I say anything about replacing D&D? You sure you're thinking of the right letter?

That -F. guy takes everything personally... Maybe you got confused?

Cheers,
-E.

Most 13th Age One Unique Things are less ridiculous: the OUT for my Gnome Ranger who rode a woolly rhino was "Sometimes the North Wind tells me things," and the OUT for my Dragonborn Commander was "I'm the only survivor of the Crusader's Brimstone Falls campaign, and it was his enemy the Diabolist who saved me." I also created a Human Ranger variation on the WFRP Rat-Catcher whose OUT was "After my nose was bitten off cleansing his cellars, the Archmage gave me an orchicalcum replacement--now I smell things that aren't there."

Quote from: Nexus;982940Its something I do allot, FWIW.

I occasionally do, but it's dependent on what it is, and how closely it's tied to the setting/location.  

• Move a Sea Cave?  Nah, I'd do the tweak/reskin if I was gonna do it.
• Move a Temple or Tower or something, definitely not.
• Move a bandit group?  Maybe.  Messing with NPCs for me depends on three things.
• The likelihood of these PCs or other PCs remaining in the area and encountering these NPCs.
• How tied to the specific location the NPC is.
• How likely the NPCs are going to remain a permanent fixture.

For example, a group of bandits might not have ties to an area, the next time you encounter their lair, Orcs could have driven them out, or the Law has hanged most of them and an Owlbear has moved into their cave, etc.  NPCs in a town, that's something different, but again, a Bounty Hunter they missed interacting with in a bar, could easily be found someplace else (although what he's doing will probably change).

Basically there's a Photo Finish between Setting Integrity and Practical, Immediate Table Need, with Table Need taking it by a nose.  That's why I do prep, so I'll never get caught with my pants down on game night.  But, if I do find myself unprepared, I would much rather go commando and freeball it by improvising then violate setting integrity, even if I'm the only one who will ever know.

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: rgrove0172;982887The thread has been great, tons of good info. I have one last question I'd appreciate clarification on. In this post

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/9187915057/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_show_all?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1

[...]

Did you mean to post this to the "how to sandbox" thread? Also, is that the link you meant to include?

Quote from: -E.;982961... Where did I say anything about replacing D&D? You sure you're thinking of the right letter?

That -F. guy takes everything personally... Maybe you got confused?

Cheers,
-E.

You need me to quote yourself back at you?

"He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs."

You continually claim he is 'frustrated' and 'heart broken' that his design failed to be as popular as D&D heartbreakers and his ideas are a 'failure.' There is no reason to think he feels anything you claim and the negative connoatations are clear, you continue to be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

In terms of the 'failure' of his ideas the terms fantasy heartbreaker, pink slime fantasy and even brain damage have entered into everyday RPG nomenclature. We'd be all so lucky to have our ideas 'fail' in such a way.

And what exactly are these successful heartbreakers you claim he is discussing? The ones he mentions in the actual essay were clearly not commercially successful as they are incredibly obscure.

And to claim modern OSR games as heartbreakers is faulty in the extreme, they are at best house ruled editions with only The Black and White Hacks being significant revisions. And both of those are really simplifications of the rules whereas the heartbreakers he discusses usually went the other direction and piled on even more rules.

You also seem to be assuming a level of 'success' to OSR games all out of whack with reality. From what Zak and Raggi say an out of control best seller in the OSR moves something like 2000 units. More often they seem to be in the 200-500 range and that is only if they are 'successful.'

Hardly world destroying numbers and I would be willing to bet the 'Children of Ron' like AW and Monsterhearts are moving comparable numbers.

Some elements of the OSR seem to have delusions of grandeur regarding their 'success.' I've read people on OSR forums and blogs suggest that D&D should imitate the OSR because of how successful it is! The OSR's success commercially is laughable, the OSR did influence 5e but it did so through the quality and persuasiveness of the ideas and content, not sale numbers.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982924Or not.

Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

A large part of the referee's fun was assumed to be creating the world (a la M.A.R. Barker's world of Tekumel), so no prep was ever "wasted."

Here here - Ive never felt cheated by "wasted" prep. Building the world is the most gratifying part of the game for me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937The Railroad/Cheating portion of re-using comes in usually in the form of "Schrodinger's Ogre" or in this case Schrodinger's Sea Cave.  In the Railroading version, they can't miss the Sea Cave, because no matter what passage they take, they encounter the Sea Cave.  Technically not re-using, because everything gets used. (Note: This is why that guy stomped out of your Star Wars game, Grove. This what he thought you were doing).

A milder version of Schrodinger's Sea Cave is simply re-using as is.  Next time the characters need a Sea Cave, you dust off one they haven't seen yet, even if it is one that's supposed to be a hundred miles down the coast, and slap it down.  Now, this isn't necessarily railroading, there's a decent chance they'll miss this Sea Cave just like they did last time.  If you're not forcing them to see it, it isn't Railroading.  Is it cheating?  Well depends on the players I guess.  It's definitely cheating Setting Consistency, but unless you use it a second time, the players will never know (cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map :p).  If it saves you time, you're the one that has to look in that mirror.

I think the more standard form of re-using is doing what you would do if you bought a module and wanted to grab a map and encounters from it.  Do a tweak and reskin as Brand55 and Lunamancer are saying.   The original location is still there, the new one is ready to go and can'y be mistaken for the original.  No Harm, No Foul.

I would be careful with that "Players will never know" phrase. Ive gotten beaten soundly a few times for claiming this when defending the old RR. Cheating is bad regardless if you get caught or not. Any deception between GM and players is really looked down upon by some.

Quote from: rgrove0172;983000Here here - Ive never felt cheated by "wasted" prep. Building the world is the most gratifying part of the game for me.

I admit, I do feel disappointed. When I'm designing things for an rpg I look forward to how the PCs are going to interact with it and the players (hopefully) enjoy it.

Quote from: Nexus;982940Its something I do allot, FWIW.

It still feels very much like railroading to me. Your not exactly forcing the group to find that Sea Cave but your sure hedging it a bit by moving it around ahead of them. Similarly I have never forced my players down a specific path but Ive suggested it (through NPCs) and made it seem like the obvious choice and so on in the hopes that they would. Not much difference in my opinion.

Quote from: Arminius;982986Did you mean to post this to the "how to sandbox" thread? Also, is that the link you meant to include?

oops

Quote from: rgrove0172;983004It still feels very much like railroading to me. Your not exactly forcing the group to find that Sea Cave but your sure hedging it a bit by moving it around ahead of them. .

They can chose not to go into the hypothetical sea cave. But I'm not running a sandbox came to begin with. Things are set until they're encountered. And they're is not much point to creating setting material to never use it, IMO.

Quote from: Nexus;983003I admit, I do feel disappointed. When I'm designing things for an rpg I look forward to how the PCs are going to interact with it and the players (hopefully) enjoy it.

Im probably an oddity but I "prep" areas of personal interest as a sort of hobby on its own, regardless if the players are closeby, have a hope of ever traveling there or if they are even in that setting! I have fleshed out areas of setting maps and never run a game there!

Quote from: rgrove0172;982887The potential to recycle unused campaign material is mentioned. I assume that means moving a temple or something from an area not visited in the game to one that will be. Am I wrong?

Probably. I read the comments on reusing to mean using it in some other context not throwing it at the same characters next week. A different context like a different campaign or adapting to an entirely different setting, e.g. the fantasy Black Goat tavern becomes Auberge de la chèvre noire in a Three Musketeers swashbuckling setting for Flashing Blades or Honor+Intrigue or it is the Black Nerf tavern in Star Wars. You keep the same floor plan, but for Star Wars the talkative bartender is a droid and the gruff dwarf in the corner is a Wookiee.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937The Railroad/Cheating portion of re-using comes in usually in the form of "Schrodinger's Ogre" or in this case Schrodinger's Sea Cave.  In the Railroading version, they can't miss the Sea Cave, because no matter what passage they take, they encounter the Sea Cave.  Technically not re-using, because everything gets used. (Note: This is why that guy stomped out of your Star Wars game, Grove. This what he thought you were doing).

A milder version of Schrodinger's Sea Cave is simply re-using as is.  Next time the characters need a Sea Cave, you dust off one they haven't seen yet, even if it is one that's supposed to be a hundred miles down the coast, and slap it down.  Now, this isn't necessarily railroading, there's a decent chance they'll miss this Sea Cave just like they did last time.  If you're not forcing them to see it, it isn't Railroading.  Is it cheating?  Well depends on the players I guess.  It's definitely cheating Setting Consistency, but unless you use it a second time, the players will never know (cue the Master Face Reader who can always tell if the GM is reusing a Sea Cave map :p).  If it saves you time, you're the one that has to look in that mirror.

I think the more standard form of re-using is doing what you would do if you bought a module and wanted to grab a map and encounters from it.  Do a tweak and reskin as Brand55 and Lunamancer are saying.   The original location is still there, the new one is ready to go and can'y be mistaken for the original.  No Harm, No Foul.

Quoted because it is one of the better explanations of this phenomena. And I'm so glad my players don't care about any of that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;983011Im probably an oddity but I "prep" areas of personal interest as a sort of hobby on its own, regardless if the players are closeby, have a hope of ever traveling there or if they are even in that setting! I have fleshed out areas of setting maps and never run a game there!

People take pleasure in different steps of the process. As long as it working for you, its all good.  There probably some people that feel I'm a railroading illusionist asshole now on top of being Hippie Storygamer scum. :D But my groups enjoy themselves.

Quote from: Nexus;983061There probably some people that feel I'm a railroading illusionist asshole now on top of being Hippie Storygamer scum.

Nah, we figured that out long before now. It kinda all flows together.

If people ever classify Ron Edwards as a Hippy, I won't be tripping anymore.

Quote from: rgrove0172;983011Im probably an oddity but I "prep" areas of personal interest as a sort of hobby on its own,

That's how this hobby started.  Dave Arneson had things his players never encountered, and Phil Barker worked on Tekumel for somewhere around 30 years before I introduced him to D&D.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982985That's literally the opposite of what he said, though: The Fantasy Heartbreaker essay is literally telling people they should go out and play these games and see what cool ideas they have that people can build on.

I'm all for a good hate-on when it comes to Edwards' theory, but I dunno that just pretending he said stuff he didn't actually say is the best way to do that.

Let me apologize in advance: I'm going to quote what he actually said
You may not know this, but your post is one in a long line of posts about this stuff, in which people claim to tell readers what Edwards is "literally telling people" while ignoring all the risible, horrible advice and theories about games being "timebombs" that's actually in his actual (literal) stuff.

Since most people can't or won't read what he's actually written (he's an awful writer) claiming he didn't say what he actually said has (historically) been surprisingly effective.

The best way to address it, in my experience, is to let the man speak for himself. Usually quoting what he's written is plenty. I'm going to do it here.

First: What I said he said
I claim he has his "heart broken" which is -- literally -- the title of his essay. I also say he expresses frustration; which he does. I'll quote what he -- literally -- says here. I'm going to bold relevant passages

What he (literally) said:

Quote from: literallyany fantasy role-playing game is subject to dark, personal, and not especially friendly scrutiny from me. Frankly, they usually induce teeth-gnashing, cries of rage, and pages of scrawling, in very tiny letters, in a spiral-bound notebook.

There's more.

Quote from: I'm being literalI'm in agony when faced with another elfy-dwarfy deal"

A little more...

Quote from: This is a direct quote. Like, a [I]literal[/I]...yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating

I could keep going. The whole essay is full of this stuff.


WAIT! BUT! He says to play them!
So yes, before you break out the BBCode for quote, I've not quoted the parts where he says positive things, or where he suggests people go play them (at the end). Anyone who's interested can go find those passages -- they're in there; he does. But only after lavishing his frustration on these poor, benighted games and calling them "timebombs".

Timebombs?

This isn't the Brain Damage... surely he didn't call games he's going to recommend people play "time bombs"...  turns out he did. But first.

Why Is He So Frustrated?

It helps to understand the specifics around why he finds these games so "teeth-grindingly frustrating?" (note--a direct quote). Fortunately he's explicit. He's frustrated (to the point of (literally?) grinding his teeth) because they use the model of AD&D.

Don't take my word for it.

Quote from: The Heartbreaker's EssayAD&D, vintage Numero Uno, provided not only the model, but the only model for these games' design - to the extent of defining the very act of role-playing. Metagame mechanics are conspicuously absent, with the exceptions noted later. In Hahlmabrea and in Fifth Cycle the status of "adventurer" is an in-game licensed social role. NeverWorld provides a painfully complex, self-help-group-like personality system which fundamentally becomes the same-old alignment system. In Forge: Out of Chaos, the very notion of doing anything that isn't treasure-seeking in a dungeon is completely foreign - its section "Breaking Open Portals" is predicated on (a) finding treasure (b) in a dungeon, with no reference to the concept that doors might exist for any other reason or play any other sort of role in an imaginary situation. The list of such things goes on and on.

So to summarize, these games are modeled on D&D and
* Lack metagame mechanics
* Have analogs to the alignment system
* Assume you're an adventurer

... just like a huge variety of other games that are both commercial and artistic successes.

So, what does he think about this? Why is this a problem?

He's explicit:

Quote from: The EssayConsider: each of these games is alike regarding the act of role-playing itself. The point of play is being an adventurer who grows very powerful and might die at any time, and all context and judgment and outcomes are the exclusive province of this guy called the GM (or whatever), case closed. They precisely parallel what AD&D role-playing evolved into during the early 1980s. Each of these games is clearly written by a GM who would very much like all the players simply to shut up and play their characters without interfering with "what's really happening." They are Social Contract time bombs.

This is terrible advice to a would-be game designer. It's also breathtakingly stupid. One of the worst analysis of RPG's I've ever seen committed to print. For a guy who wants to think deeply about this stuff, it's amazingly shallow and misguided.

Fortunately we've largely moved past it and now celebrate games based on D&D and its predecessors without anyone needing to get their tender heart broken!

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Voros;982990You need me to quote yourself back at you?

"He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs."

You continually claim he is 'frustrated' and 'heart broken' that his design failed to be as popular as D&D heartbreakers and his ideas are a 'failure.' There is no reason to think he feels anything you claim and the negative connoatations are clear, you continue to be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

In terms of the 'failure' of his ideas the terms fantasy heartbreaker, pink slime fantasy and even brain damage have entered into everyday RPG nomenclature. We'd be all so lucky to have our ideas 'fail' in such a way.

And what exactly are these successful heartbreakers you claim he is discussing? The ones he mentions in the actual essay were clearly not commercially successful as they are incredibly obscure.

And to claim modern OSR games as heartbreakers is faulty in the extreme, they are at best house ruled editions with only The Black and White Hacks being significant revisions. And both of those are really simplifications of the rules whereas the heartbreakers he discusses usually went the other direction and piled on even more rules.

You also seem to be assuming a level of 'success' to OSR games all out of whack with reality. From what Zak and Raggi say an out of control best seller in the OSR moves something like 2000 units. More often they seem to be in the 200-500 range and that is only if they are 'successful.'

Hardly world destroying numbers and I would be willing to bet the 'Children of Ron' like AW and Monsterhearts are moving comparable numbers.

Some elements of the OSR seem to have delusions of grandeur regarding their 'success.' I've read people on OSR forums and blogs suggest that D&D should imitate the OSR because of how successful it is! The OSR's success commercially is laughable, the OSR did influence 5e but it did so through the quality and persuasiveness of the ideas and content, not sale numbers.

I'm still unclear where I said anything about "replacing" D&D. Did you mean to quote a post that mentions that? When I search this thread I can't find any reference to replacing D&D at all (except yours and my response).

Where are you getting this?

I also can't find any post where I claim that his frustrated and heart-broken reaction (explicit quotes from his essay) are about his game's failure to be as popular as D&D. I... don't recall writing that, or thinking it.

I'm just... not saying the things you think I'm saying.

If this is like an English-As-A-Second-Language thing or something? Let me know -- I'd be happy to try to reword my posts, but as it stands I'm not sure if you're responding to me or someone else, or just getting confused.

I'd be happy to address some of the notes in your post -- the failure of his games (Spione) or the success of D&D-alikes, past (Hackmaster, which won Origins Game Of The Year Award a year before the Heartbreaker essay) and present... but I'm afraid of getting started when we seem to have so many basic communication issues still unresolved.

A Little Help?
-E.

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: TrippyHippy;983084If people ever classify Ron Edwards as a Hippy, I won't be tripping anymore.

Nothing to worry about - self-proclaimed story gamers are hipsters, not hippies.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;982985:rolleyes:

Here's that link to Edwards' original brain damage comment again, BTW. (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/158)

You really DO have Altzheimer's!

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

As far as I know and remember from my Interview with RE, he has never played any meaningful amount of D&D back in the 70-90s. He lived in a RuneQuest area and really wanted to get into the cool kids RQ games, later played Champions heavily. In fact, from the way he talked, it sounded like Champions is the only game he played in a way that I would recognize as really playing.
I faintly remember he did play some D&D during the later Forge period and posted about that on their Forum, These actual play reports also indicated to me that RE indeed might be many things: first-hand knowledgable about the fun in D&D he is utterly not.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983205:rolleyes:

(It's the spelling error that really makes this post intellectually consistent with your other contributions to this discussion.)

Aww! Too bad you've forgotten what the conversation was about. Still at least you may remember to get your crappy game out on time! Oh, wait....

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983150You. Are. Lying.

Transparently so, in fact.

I mean, yes, I could go on and do the step-by-step demonstration of the selective quoting you attempted to perform in the latter portions of your post. But since (a) you've already admitted that's what you did and (b) you don't even have the integrity to stand by what you actually said (and instead choose to lie about it in the hope that no one would notice), there's really no point, right? You've already tacitly admitted that you were wrong.

As a reminder, here's the conclusion of the Heartbreaker essay:

You claim that he's "heart broken" that these people are creating games "built on the foundation of the most popular RPGs of all time, instead of his ideas". If that's the case, why is he specifically telling people to play those games, study them, and then create new games built on them? Why is he specifically telling people to do the thing you claim he doesn't want people to do?

Voros has made the mistake of thinking that you're actually discussing Edwards' Heartbreaker essay and is reading your comments as if they were in the context of what Edwards actually said. This is causing confusion because this is not, of course, what you are doing.

I'm not lying
I'm not lying -- really. Take it easy.

I'm saying exactly what I said:

1) he had his heart broken (it's -- literally -- in the title) because
2) the games are based on D&D and not his ideas (which he enumerates -- metagame mechanics, traditional GM, etc).

I didn't address what he said people should do, or claim to summarize every point he makes in the essay. The things you think I'm lying about aren't anywhere in what I've posted.

If were lying, I wouldn't have a long list of quotes for both claims
Obviously, if I were lying about what he said, I wouldn't be able to quote him at length saying it.

So no, I'm not lying.

So why does it feel like I'm lying?
I'm not exactly sure why you feel so strongly that I'm lying.

One possibility: Maybe you find his recommendation at the end so powerful and so important that (for you) it seems to overshadow any other salient points in the essay? And maybe you found it so striking that to talk about the essay, but not talk about the recommendation feels like a lie of omission?

I admit that sounds weird, but it's how I read your accusation of lying.

In my defense, I wrote about the essay with respect to it's title. It's not called "Games we should play" or "Games we should learn from" -- it's called "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and it's about him having his heart-broken and being frustrated by these games.

Another possibility: You're mistaken about the claims I'm making. I'm not making a huge number of claims -- I didn't write a long, analytical paper that tried to address every point in the paper.

The claims I did make are well-backed up from the actual text (where I quoted it), but in your post, you accuse me of lying based on claims I didn't make.

Your question / confusion (which I'll quote below) mistakes me for thinking he doesn't want people playing these games.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983150You claim that he's "heart broken" that these people are creating games "built on the foundation of the most popular RPGs of all time, instead of his ideas". If that's the case, why is he specifically telling people to play those games, study them, and then create new games built on them? Why is he specifically telling people to do the thing you claim he doesn't want people to do?

I never claim he doesn't want people to play the games. I never claimed he wanted to "replace D&D" -- whatever that means.

I think you're either confusing me with someone else or you're reading a whole bunch of stuff I'm not saying into my posts and then attacking claims I didn't make.

Just to be clear: he wants people to play those games because they're indie games and he supports them and he thinks the "nuggets" of what he considers good ideas (typically metagamy mechanics in the magic systems) might be inspiring. None of that walks back him having his heart-broken or suggests he finds using D&D as a model a viable artistic or commercial strategy.

TL;DR
In case this is a bit long, let me summarize:

1) No, I didn't lie -- I just wrote a post that didn't comment on parts of the essay you felt were important
2) No, I didn't claim he didn't want people to play the heartbreakers. You just assumed that because I didn't write about it
3) No, I never claimed he wanted to "replace D&D" or anything like that -- that's another thing Voros (and now you) are inventing for me to have said.
4) The claims I did make are heavily backed up with direct, explicit quotes from the text
5) The claims you're arguing against -- that I didn't make --are weird and although I'm trying to see where they're coming from, I'm having trouble figuring it out

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982937I think the more standard form of re-using is doing what you would do if you bought a module and wanted to grab a map and encounters from it.  Do a tweak and reskin as Brand55 and Lunamancer are saying.   The original location is still there, the new one is ready to go and can'y be mistaken for the original.  No Harm, No Foul.

Boy, if pulling a dungeon map that never got used out and using it when you need one is problematic, I must be railroader.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982899Well sure but am I hearing that if the GM jotted down some ideas for a sea cave and the players never bite...he would keep the idea and present it again next time they are near the coast..elsewhere? That sounds like recycling to me, or similarly with a specific idea for an NPC. The party never meets the Tinkerer so he gets shelved until the next village etc.

I guess it comes back to the question of, "do the players' decisions matter?" If they are going to end up in the same dungeon (or "dungeon") with the same challenges, or meet the exact same people dropping the same plot hooks, then it is a problem. If you can repurpose things such that their decisions are still rewarded/penalized, then repurposing things should be fine (unless, of course, you only think you are making their decisions matter).

Quote from: CRKrueger;982968I occasionally do, but it's dependent on what it is, and how closely it's tied to the setting/location.

It also, for me, depends on how 'generalizable,' the things is. If a bandit gang is pretty generic, and if they miss the Purple Flower gang in town X, then I'll probably use the same write-up if they run into Miller's Gang in town Y. The oddball cult that trains displacer beasts but strangely worships a snake-goddess--if the PCs don't pick up that plot thread, it's going to go back into the folder for another gaming group or something.

The more I read this thread, the more Ron Edwards sounds like little more than some nerd on the Internet who wrote some boring blog posts that made some people angry (seriously, I have tried to read the stuff people talk about, and it's just endless nerd rambling), ran an online forum that a handful of people frequented, and tried and failed multiple times to get his self-published stuff to go big.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982924Or not.

Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

A large part of the referee's fun was assumed to be creating the world (a la M.A.R. Barker's world of Tekumel), so no prep was ever "wasted."

This in spades. If you don't enjoy creating the world, I am not sure why you would want to be the ref, unless it is only because you want power, which is not what it is about.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982894I would never move something; it is cheating.  Now if the players are hunting for rumors, and I think this Temple of the Eager Virgin is a real cool adventure site, I might have rumors keep popping up.

And if your players aren't hunting for rumors in a sandbox, they should be.

I agree. It is cheating to move it and it is not cheating to have the rumors pop up. If you player aren't hunting for rumors in your sandbox, then they don't get it yet, but don't give up they can still learn how to play the old school way.

Cross-post thread-crapping from another thread (which I didn't post this in), as a case-study:

Quote from: Dumarest;982659Perhaps we can combine them and Dig-Dug is operating inside various asteroids...

It could be a storygame where narrativium points prevent the asteroids with Dig-Dug inside from being atomized from outside, and of course every character has to be given exactly equal attention and something exciting and dramatic to do at all times, with exactly zero chance of dying.

Quote from: Skarg;983291Cross-post thread-crapping from another thread (which I didn't post this in), as a case-study:


It could be a storygame where narrativium points prevent the asteroids with Dig-Dug inside from being atomized from outside, and of course every character has to be given exactly equal attention and something exciting and dramatic to do at all times, with exactly zero chance of dying.

Well, then I wouldn't want to play my own game... :mad:

Quote from: -E.;983226I'm not lying
I'm not lying -- really. Take it easy.

I'm saying exactly what I said:

1) he had his heart broken (it's -- literally -- in the title) because
2) the games are based on D&D and not his ideas (which he enumerates -- metagame mechanics, traditional GM, etc).
...

I haven't thoroughly studied that essay, but it seemed pretty clear to me that he is expressing sympathy for all the effort and hope put into various indy RPGs that were published that were basically D&D campaigns with house rules and homebrew settings and various other ideas, but which he thinks led to creative and popularity failures, which ideas he then elaborates on his opinions about.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;983271The more I read this thread, the more Ron Edwards sounds like little more than some nerd on the Internet who wrote some boring blog posts that made some people angry (seriously, I have tried to read the stuff people talk about, and it's just endless nerd rambling), ran an online forum that a handful of people frequented, and tried and failed multiple times to get his self-published stuff to go big.

That seems to be my impression. This entire thing appears to be a tempest in a teapot that hit people in the craw more than it had any real impact.

The end result, regardless of what any of us here say, is that most people who play silly elfgames are playing how they play with no regard to either our elegant theories, nor those of this Edwards character (who rates a strong 'who?' on the influential-o-meter) or his-and-his-friend's games they've never heard of.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;983304That seems to be my impression. This entire thing appears to be a tempest in a teapot that hit people in the craw more than it had any real impact.

Sure, it looks like that now to a degree.  However, a few years back, the guy had a pretty strident following and there were folks all over the rpg forums advocating his perspectives and telling all us old-schoolers we were dinosaurs and it was time for everyone to move past the "dark ages."  That's where much of the animosity originates.

Quote from: Dumarest;983300Well, then I wouldn't want to play my own game... :mad:

Neither would I. I'll hold out for your version. :)

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983308Sure, it looks like that now to a degree.  However, a few years back, the guy had a pretty strident following and there were folks all over the rpg forums advocating his perspectives and telling all us old-schoolers we were dinosaurs and it was time for everyone to move past the "dark ages."  That's where much of the animosity originates.

So exactly what I said, no real impact.

That's supposed to be darkly fatalistic, not flippant and dismissive of your plight. I'm just convinced that apparently RPG-gamers online can't not be jerks to each other. I don't get it*, but there it is. We must be horrible to the people who are mostly like us because they're not exactly like us. So it goes.
*well, I do, I understand the societal phenomena of tribalism, and how you hate your neighbor-tribe who's very similar to you more than you do the truly foreign one from far away. That doesn't mean I get get it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;983304That seems to be my impression. This entire thing appears to be a tempest in a teapot that hit people in the craw more than it had any real impact.

The end result, regardless of what any of us here say, is that most people who play silly elfgames are playing how they play with no regard to either our elegant theories, nor those of this Edwards character (who rates a strong 'who?' on the influential-o-meter) or his-and-his-friend's games they've never heard of.

This.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983308folks all over the rpg forums

So what, a few dozen people? Maybe a few hundred? Forums have this way of amplifying things and making them seem bigger than they are. Forums are in reality a tiny sliver of the most dedicated fans of something and in no way indicative of trends or the whole. They're echo chambers that can make things nobody cares about seem extremely important to the users (like how PC gamers' forums have been predicting Playstation's doom and the resurgence of the graphical powerhouse FPS as the center of game development for over 15 years now).

Edwards was probably amplified even more by the fact that in 2001, the internet was much tinier than today. There was no Twitter. There was no Facebook (where the big 5e group has over 100,000 members). Amazon was still struggling to find itself, and self-publishing hadn't blown up yet. I'm pretty sure blogger was just geting off the ground, too. These days, "Look at my deep-thinking gaming blog and self-published RPG!" barely merits a notice.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;983304That seems to be my impression. This entire thing appears to be a tempest in a teapot that hit people in the craw more than it had any real impact.

The end result, regardless of what any of us here say, is that most people who play silly elfgames are playing how they play with no regard to either our elegant theories, nor those of this Edwards character (who rates a strong 'who?' on the influential-o-meter) or his-and-his-friend's games they've never heard of.

Pretty much, if you add in "a small group of people who made a lot of noise on the Internet for a while" into the mix.  Rather like the Bandar-Log.

Regarding Ron Edwards...  

I disagreed with Ron Edwards particularly on these points and argued with him over it. However, I've been active in online RPG discussions since around 1991, and have read into discussions before then. It is utterly ridiculous to assert that the animosity over narrative and story started with him.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;983308Sure, it looks like that now to a degree.  However, a few years back, the guy had a pretty strident following and there were folks all over the rpg forums advocating his perspectives and telling all us old-schoolers we were dinosaurs and it was time for everyone to move past the "dark ages."  That's where much of the animosity originates.

There were plenty of posts long before Ron Edwards of pro-story gamers calling old-schoolers dinosaurs, and also of old-schoolers calling pro-story gamers railroaders and/or pretentious goons. I linked earlier to a 1980 Different Worlds article about the divide of gaming. It was all about how to cut down on the "violent arguments" "furious discussion", and "feuds" between different styles.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

Quote from: fearsomepirate;983271The more I read this thread, the more Ron Edwards sounds like little more than some nerd on the Internet who wrote some boring blog posts that made some people angry (seriously, I have tried to read the stuff people talk about, and it's just endless nerd rambling), ran an online forum that a handful of people frequented, and tried and failed multiple times to get his self-published stuff to go big.

Makes sense.

What I noticed about Ron Edwards writing is he's pretty good at spelling out his reasons for thing. But it's also clear to me that he falls for just about every classical fallacy that highly intelligent and educated people fall for. This leads to the divide between theory in reality. I suppose frustration is one natural response when you just know for a fact something isn't working or just isn't right but can't pinpoint where it went wrong. Another common response seems to be endless scapegoating coupled with endless solving of the faux problems. It's easy to see why this would lead to staunch divergence.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982924Sandboxing originally involved multiple groups of players with multiple agendas.  And yes, the players may never discover some of your neat shit.  Much like 'Kill your NPCs,' you must kill your favorite adventure locations.

I don't know why but this crystallizes an important point for me--even if you only have one party, it's a useful exercise to think of your prep as if there could be multiple parties in the campaign. To me this argues for simplification at the system level and quick sketches at the setting level, which (because your system is simple) can easily be fleshed out. YMMV of course. In more complex systems it's probably more necessary to pregenerate detailed special NPCs, generic NPCs, and NPC groups.

Just remember, "everybody wants something, and will work to get it."  "What does this NPC want?  Ready, set, go."

Many NPCs will have simple wants, of course.  The village blacksmith in Generic Village #23.  Et cetera.  Not every NPC needs the drives and motivations of Hamlet.

Quote from: jhkim;983419Regarding Ron Edwards...  

I disagreed with Ron Edwards particularly on these points and argued with him over it. However, I've been active in online RPG discussions since around 1991, and have read into discussions before then. It is utterly ridiculous to assert that the animosity over narrative and story started with him.


There were plenty of posts long before Ron Edwards of pro-story gamers calling old-schoolers dinosaurs, and also of old-schoolers calling pro-story gamers railroaders and/or pretentious goons. I linked earlier to a 1980 Different Worlds article about the divide of gaming. It was all about how to cut down on the "violent arguments" "furious discussion", and "feuds" between different styles.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

I remember when Glen first published that article in The Wild Hunt. Glen definitely characterized himself as more of a "role player" than any of the other types, on the other hand, his play meshed just fine with the more "hack and slash" players in my group. But back when that was written, it's also worth noting there were not any story games (using the more restrictive definition of story game that does not include D&D). At the time of publication, there were some modules that were very railroady, but the first time I encountered a GM with a story arc was in college at least a year after the publication of this article.

Frank

Quote from: Arminius;983421I don't know why but this crystallizes an important point for me--even if you only have one party, it's a useful exercise to think of your prep as if there could be multiple parties in the campaign. To me this argues for simplification at the system level and quick sketches at the setting level, which (because your system is simple) can easily be fleshed out. YMMV of course. In more complex systems it's probably more necessary to pregenerate detailed special NPCs, generic NPCs, and NPC groups.

This is a fantastic point -- although I rarely reuse campaign settings, I always write as if I were going to. A setting should be able to tell many interesting stories.

I do (as I said) a lot of prep, so NPCs, etc. need to be statted out (I use a rules-heavy game).

My experience is that a decent spreadsheet and templates can make the prep go easier. I spend most of my time on non-system, creative artifacts. Maps, for example.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JhkimThere were plenty of posts long before Ron Edwards of pro-story gamers calling old-schoolers dinosaurs, and also of old-schoolers calling pro-story gamers railroaders and/or pretentious goons. I linked earlier to a 1980 Different Worlds article about the divide of gaming. It was all about how to cut down on the "violent arguments" "furious discussion", and "feuds" between different styles.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/t...ls/blacow.html

Quote from: ffilz;983431I remember when Glen first published that article in The Wild Hunt. Glen definitely characterized himself as more of a "role player" than any of the other types, on the other hand, his play meshed just fine with the more "hack and slash" players in my group. But back when that was written, it's also worth noting there were not any story games (using the more restrictive definition of story game that does not include D&D). At the time of publication, there were some modules that were very railroady, but the first time I encountered a GM with a story arc was in college at least a year after the publication of this article.

Frank

Interesting to know this thing goes way back. Thanks.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

When did this turn into the "Lets prove people who don't like story games were really all upset about nothing" thread?  The question asked was "why the hate for narrative story elements?"  My answer was that for me it has a negative impact on immersion.  I never said I hate story gamers and really I never even bothered to read the Forge stuff and Edwards.  I just remember a few years back there was a lot of debate going on and the OSR crowd tended to be on one side while the Forge crowd was on the other and from what I saw neither side was innocent of starting things up.  But there was at the time a little scuffle going on...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983512:rolleyes:

Your jealousy is noted and appreciated.

Who wouldn't be jealous of somebody waiting for a heavily delayed kickstarter.. for a mediocre game....um..?


Anyway, best take that note and tattoo it on your body somewhere. You may forget else.....

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Oh for shit's sake, the two of you just fuck and be done with it.

Quote from: Settembrini;983207As far as I know and remember from my Interview with RE, he has never played any meaningful amount of D&D back in the 70-90s. He lived in a RuneQuest area and really wanted to get into the cool kids RQ games, later played Champions heavily. In fact, from the way he talked, it sounded like Champions is the only game he played in a way that I would recognize as really playing.
I faintly remember he did play some D&D during the later Forge period and posted about that on their Forum, These actual play reports also indicated to me that RE indeed might be many things: first-hand knowledgable about the fun in D&D he is utterly not.

Not true sorry. Here is what he actually wrote.

Hip to geek

The following is strictly a personal reflection from my own experiences of late 1970s and early-1980s role-playing, as a hobby culture. I was 13-14 years old in 1977-79 when I discovered the hobby, and through the age of, roughly, sixteen, I battered my head against (A)D&D in a variety of groups. They fell into the following categories:

Mainly older people with a sprinkling of teens who tried to do adult things as much as possible. The adults were usually Army guys, with some hip types who ran kids' groups or community-course programs. The latter ran some damn good games, as I recall.

Fellow teens - these get-togethers were often the least satisfying, on the one hand due to individuals who owned "special" rules that no one else did (brrrr ... what one guy armed with an Arduin Grimoire can do to a Social Contract ...), and on the other because of the perfectly reasonable assessment by many that the textual game itself wasn't particularly fun.

I also knew of several college groups during this time, up through the early 1980s, mainly playing RuneQuest. I burned with jealousy and desperately wanted to be in college and to play with folks like that.

Significantly, many groups, even the teen ones, included women in their late twenties who were interested in role-playing and not at all concerned about the propriety of hanging out with boys ten years younger. This was the late 1970s, after all. I remember quite a few such individuals.

By 1983, things had changed drastically; in some ways, it mirrored a general subcultural shift across the entire country (see the film Boogie Nights if you didn't live through it). I'd realized that D&D had become a "pube" activity, meaning 10-13-year-olds exclusively, most of whom played once and then walked.

The content resembled video games of the time: lives, levels, and skyrocketing success scores, with no real loss at all. It was utterly divorced from fantasy or mythic literature, and the comics and fantasy authors of the day disavowed the hobby en masse. Successful play became more and more a matter of who could break the game fastest, and the social gamer became more and more consistently the social-outcast gamer. Gaming communities weren't an edifying bunch, actually; they'd been transformed socially and procedurally by the Cargo Cult context into a rabidly-abusive, nitpicky bunch, in which the Social Contract actually included making others upset.

It had lost its cool factor entirely, just in time for me to go to college in the fall of that year. The aforementioned Willing Female Factor had vanished like smoke, and, my priorities firmly in place, I swore off the hobby. The oath didn't last long, of course. I did find a lot of people to role-play with, including women my own age, but always on the basis that we "weren't like those gamers." Conversations about role-playing ceased instantly if anyone nearby evinced interest in D&D. We played Champions and Stormbringer, and looked forward to the buzz of GURPS. "

Three years of play at the cultural peak of D&D is hardly not 'meaningful.' Most people's most extensive experience playing D&D is from their teens.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983561And TrapFlappy descends back into incoherent gibberish.

Never change, TrapFlappy. Never change.

Heh! You've even forgotten who you are talking to! :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;983512You just said you did X and then immediately said you didn't do X. I'm not sure if this is because English apparently isn't your first language or your mendacity, but I can't take your posts seriously at this point.

Well, that would make sense.

For one thing, my first language is "incoherent gibberish."

For another, hallucinations and feelings of euphoria are often associated with X; it's a downside of traditional gamer / rave culture.

You might be on to something.
-E.

To answer the OP's question, it's because they make it impossible to engage the things a player wants to in play. For example, many 'narrative' games feature abstract resource mechanics so you don't have to select your equipment beforehand. But those mechanics also mean you can't select your equipment beforehand, so if that's something you enjoy, you're not going to find it here. Such games literally make it impossible to engage certain kinds of play on a practical level, because they decided a 'feature' was a 'bug'. That's focused design, but not a universal set of values, and declaring it to be the latter will inevitably generate heat.

As for #RonEdwards' #BrainDamage premise, it can basically be summed up in the first 4 minutes of this video...

[video=youtube_share;Kc2kFk5M9x4]https://youtu.be/Kc2kFk5M9x4[/youtube]

...that is, #RogueOne is an example of the kind of brain damaged 'storytelling' Ron is talking about, full of #FanService and #Touchstones detached from any compelling characters or meaningful story. There's a podcast interview where he explains this, which I'll link when I find it.

Now I don't consider this kind of thing to be actual brain damage, nor do I think RPGs specifically engender it. But I do find it tedious and boring, and resent when it contaminates my play because it interferes with the things I want to engage with.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;980714In conversation with a fan of Monster Hearts, she tried to explain that this was a "deeper" game than Vampire: The Masquerade because it was a 'narrativist' game (she couldn't actually explain how specifically it made for a deeper experience, nor how it was more definitively 'narrativist' in design).

It's frustrating when you don't have the words to express what you mean or can't identify why something works for you. That's why design is difficult.

Quote from: David Johansen;980750One thing I've come to accept is that people have different talents and some people are just more creative than others.  I think it's partly a matter of developing it through practice but people are also terrified of criticism which is a necessary part of growth.  You don't become good at anything creative by being uncritical.  But many people have had the creativity beaten right out of them though, if you ever start a sentence "not to be mean but," just stop and walk away, no constructive criticism ever started with that line.

#PlusOne

One thing that makes RPGs a difficult medium is that in order to facilitate creative contributions you need an environment where people feel they won't be judged. Yet #RPGs require contributions to be judged in order to see how they affect the game. So #StoryGame theory tends to be very interested in 'non-judgmental judgement' methods like the X Card, which still won't work if the user is too concerned about being judged. In the meantime 'traditional' RPGs address these same creativity and accountability concerns through things like random tables.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;981074I mock. I mock relentlessly. Because you have it coming. Because we all have it coming.

Now this is the kind of #Fatalism I can dig.

Quote from: Dumarest;981201I'm still wondering why I'm supposed to care how strangers play games at their tables.

Because #RPGs are a social hobby, and if you can't find people who share your preferences (or worse consider them immoral), then you'll be one lonely (and persecuted) gamer.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981333For me it is really simple, people entering the hobby are being taught how to have less fun in a restrictive style of play that seriously limits player options, while they are being told IMO untruthfully that they have more options in a scripted story game railroad.

Quote from: Itachi;981341I can't remember a single Forgite game that's a "scripted railroad"

Quote from: ffilz;981344When I think of Story Games, I don't think of scripted railroads.

Quote from: jhkim;981347I'm confused about what story games you're picturing here.

Yes, #StoryGames means something completely different than what @Crimhthan is talking about. Yes, #StoryGames were specifically designed to solve exactly the problem he brings up. But this is not an uncommon misunderstanding, which is why I think the name sucks.

Quote from: ffilz;981344These days I think of Story Games as being the types of games discussed over on http://www.story-games.com/forums/ and I'm with the folks that include old school D&D in the realm of what that community means by "story games".

And if you look at some of the most current discussions there you'll see how many of them have come full circle when it comes to 'old school'.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;981381In a traditional game, the moral choices can be significant if the individual player wants them to be. In a storygame, the moral choices are significant whether the player wants them to be or not.

Examples?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;981478I don't believe that it's about revenue but it's a popularity contest for sure.

Which gets really nasty when people feel these games carry some sort of moral prerogative. I also like how some switch between claiming legitimacy because they're a minority to claiming legitimacy because they're a majority once they achieve that status.

Quote from: Biscuitician;981488The Dr Who initiative system is one of the most constricting narrative/story design elements in recent years (whether you like the idea or not) and the self proclaimed arch nemesis of 'The Swine' claims authorship of it.

Well he's nothing if not consistent :)

Also you're a little late to the party (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?24971-Tenra-Bansho-Zero-Second-Act&p=606463&viewfull=1#post606463).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982039The difference is between suggestion and mandate.  "Does it rain to cover our tracks?" vs "It does rain to cover our tracks!"

I think even in #Fate a GM has the right to dismiss an offer if they don't feel it fits. And what procedures are normally used to answer such questions? GM #Fiat? A die roll?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;982144And that's a difference in philosophy even within "traditional" games: do you survive because you're heroes, or are you heroes because you survived?

What an excellent summation.

Such gamers differ on the very basis of their reasoning, so it's not surprising they come into conflict.

Quote from: Voros;982990In terms of the 'failure' of his ideas the terms fantasy heartbreaker, pink slime fantasy and even brain damage have entered into everyday RPG nomenclature. We'd be all so lucky to have our ideas 'fail' in such a way.

I know, right?

Quote from: Voros;983567Not true sorry. Here is what he actually wrote.

*snip*

"The aforementioned Willing Female Factor had vanished like smoke, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/)"

Considering the state of gender politics in gaming currently, I find this intriguingly relevant.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;982894I would never move something; it is cheating.  Now if the players are hunting for rumors, and I think this Temple of the Eager Virgin is a real cool adventure site, I might have rumors keep popping up.

And if your players aren't hunting for rumors in a sandbox, they should be.

This is something I mentioned in the other thread too. That you need a certain type of player to really make some of the styles of sandbox play come alive.

Quote from: rgrove0172;982899Well sure but am I hearing that if the GM jotted down some ideas for a sea cave and the players never bite...he would keep the idea and present it again next time they are near the coast..elsewhere? That sounds like recycling to me, or similarly with a specific idea for an NPC. The party never meets the Tinkerer so he gets shelved until the next village etc.

If the sea cave or the tinkerer were set down in the game and the DM decided to drop them in the players path later so "it wasnt wasted" then yeah thats cheating and we had a great big thread/thread derail on that before. Which you yourself initiated I believe. Very few if any here advocate moving a location once its been set but the players bypassed it.

Ive seen it suggested over on BGG. But even over there it tends to get shot down as bad form.

Thats very different from having a sea cave prepped in case the players decide they want to go into the briny depths out of the blue. Some DMs prep little things like that for when they are caught flat footed or dry on ideas. Or when details arent as important. I have on occasion. Like that generic tavern I mentioned before. I can flesh it out more if need be.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;983692To answer the OP's question, ...

This was an excellent post, I found very little that I would quibble with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;982941Plus, there might be a chance that some other group encounters the Sea Cave, and gets the treasure out of it, and the first group of players hear a rumor about it. :)

Theres also the fact that just because they missed the "whatever" now, does not mean they wont come back later. Especially if they hear rumours of it.

Example: Ive run Keep on the Borderlands quite a few times now and only once have the PCs actually run into the crazy hermit. And several totally missed all the stuff going on in the area other than the Caves. Others might miss it on the way out and then bump into it for some reason on the way back. In one case they ran into the bandits in the forest. Why? Because they were off the road trying to avoid bandits theyd heard rumours of.
That was funny.

Quote from: Crimhthan;983723This was an excellent post, I found very little that I would quibble with.

How hard did you look?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;983692Now this is the kind of #Fatalism I can dig.

*tips cap*

Quote from: Zalman;983740How hard did you look?

A lot harder than a lot of you are when you misrepresent what I say, is that good enough or do I need to look even harder?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;983692To answer the OP's question, it's because they make it impossible to engage the things a player wants to in play. For example, many 'narrative' games feature abstract resource mechanics so you don't have to select your equipment beforehand. But those mechanics also mean you can't select your equipment beforehand, so if that's something you enjoy, you're not going to find it here. Such games literally make it impossible to engage certain kinds of play on a practical level, because they decided a 'feature' was a 'bug'. That's focused design, but not a universal set of values, and declaring it to be the latter will inevitably generate heat.

This may be the most pertinent, lucid statement of yours I have ever read.
   

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;983692

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;9820391) The difference is between suggestion and mandate.  "Does it rain to cover our tracks?" vs "It does rain to cover our tracks!"

I think even in #Fate a GM has the right to dismiss an offer if they don't feel it fits. And what procedures are normally used to answer such questions? GM #Fiat? A die roll?

What are the procedures in Fate? I've no clue and less interest.

In the sorts of games I run? That depends. In some campaigns weather is something that is determined via custom seasonal weather tables so the answer is generally known. If weather isn't determined, I'd use a die roll with odds subjectively determined based on how likely rain is to occur based on season, location, climate, etc. So in central Florida on a summer afternoon – odds are good that some rain occurs for a short period of time. In the southwest American desert in summer, the odds are very low.

Quote from: Bren;983905What are the procedures in Fate? I've no clue and less interest.

 

This nonsensical statement sums up the state of RPGSite perfectly.

Quote from: Voros;984018This nonsensical statement sums up the state of RPGSite perfectly.

Why thank you. Thank you very much.

It's also telling that you felt compelled to comment on that sentence of mine rather than answering the question that Anon Adderlan asked.

I didn't see Anon's question. Your statement is still nonsense. You ask a question and then declaim your lack of interest in what you just asked about. The height of bad faith and forum horseshit.

I've now read Anon's response and have no idea what question you're referring to. He didn't address any question to me. He answered the OP, agreed with me and contemplated Ron's comment regarding women in D&D in the 70s.

Quote from: Voros;984030I've now read Anon's response and have no idea what question you're referring to. He didn't address any question to me. He answered the OP, agreed with me and contemplated Ron's comment regarding women in D&D in the 70s.

His question was in my post. The post you quoted in your pissy response.

My aren't you sensitive. Sorry for pointing out your idiotic contradictory old man post.

And how would I answer what someone would do in Fate? I'm not familar with the system.

Have you taken your medication today?

Someone get the applesauce quick.

Quote from: Arminius;983421I don't know why but this crystallizes an important point for me--even if you only have one party, it's a useful exercise to think of your prep as if there could be multiple parties in the campaign. To me this argues for simplification at the system level and quick sketches at the setting level, which (because your system is simple) can easily be fleshed out. YMMV of course. In more complex systems it's probably more necessary to pregenerate detailed special NPCs, generic NPCs, and NPC groups.

I have had two groups of characters in my sandbox on several occasions, sometimes with another GM. I run a crunchy system and the NPCs are fleshed out and move around, if and when they move, for their own reasons. I put up a map with pins in it. I had three groups once, with another GM for one of them. Powerful groups of PCs can make major changes in a sandbox ("that inn isn't there anymore and those villagers are very suspicious, possibly violent, about mages with torch-wands") so the GMs have to keep one another informed.

--
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

That sounds quite cool, but this thread has become hopelessly fragmented. I wonder if the mods could do something to extract the sandbox methods portion from general filosofizin' & flamin'.

Quote from: Voros;983567Not true sorry. Here is what he actually wrote.

Three years of play at the cultural peak of D&D is hardly not 'meaningful.' Most people's most extensive experience playing D&D is from their teens.

Well, from the interview it sounded much more like he tried it a bit. But did not play too much in these "peak years". Again, I spent the better part of two days playing and talking to him and taking the multi-hour interview. I am pretty confident that he did not play a lot of D&D. I remember him being actually disgusted by D&D players when they were wargamers because these supposedly were creeps who would torture animals in their backyard and would be supportive of the Vietnam war.

I might misremember the details, but to me, what he wrote there does not conflict my reading of his verbal account. Actually I prepared for that interview, and I think I read that thing when preparing questions. Because I definitelly bugged him a lot about how much he would be a DM and how often a player, what his characters were etc. I tried hard to talk to him as a gamer, the teenage kind, and all the answers I got were basically pointing to the fact that he only regularly played the way I understand it during his Champions time and from then on.

I took the vids off youtube and am not inclined to put them back on, so it's my words against your intperpretation of a self-promoting piece he wrote.

Anyhow, I find Pundits current political stances so at odds with my own sense of decency, that I will not be posting until he clarifies his position in a manner I find acceptable. At this point in time, I want to disavow any sympathies for Pundit and thereby do not want to be associated with theRPGSite as of now.
Anybody who is backing Breitbart and the Alt-Right at this point in time is actually a force of obscurantism and an enabler of henious acts. And even though the gaming threads are thankfully politics free, this site is owned and associated with a person earning money with this site as well as political journalism.

So, bye.

And John, should you read this:
As a Mason, you most likely know, that there cannot ever be an ultimate dogma, no belief without exception, nothing set in stone 100% of the time. And ultimately even free speech has its limits. I always thought I'd quit this site because of your bannings and some violation of free speech. But your recent blogposts leave me shocked and sad. Sometimes, very seldomly, right now, sticking to your guns and principles of "100% free speech 100% of the time" is wrong. Bye.

EDIT To make it more clear: Free Speech puts a big responsibility on civil society. It's the hard way. And its the best. But it is hard because you can never just use talking points and dogma, you must always be ready to disavow or denounce those that abuse free speech or are just plain Nazis. Voltaire is right, but Voltair'll fight! And our host did not fight, he is silent and making excuses. So now here, from a free speech advocate, my disapproval.

I hate to say it but... Just because you got along with the guy doesnt mean what he was doing was right.

I spent several years RPing with a popular artist and then found out that he was ripping off patrons. LOTS of patrons. Unfortunately I know several people who have commissioned him knowing hes robbed people. Just so they could get some of his art.

Quote from: Settembrini;984696Well, from the interview it sounded much more like he tried it a bit. But did not play too much in these "peak years". Again, I spent the better part of two days playing and talking to him and taking the multi-hour interview. I am pretty confident that he did not play a lot of D&D. I remember him being actually disgusted by D&D players when they were wargamers because these supposedly were creeps who would torture animals in their backyard and would be supportive of the Vietnam war.

I might misremember the details, but to me, what he wrote there does not conflict my reading of his verbal account. Actually I prepared for that interview, and I think I read that thing when preparing questions. Because I definitelly bugged him a lot about how much he would be a DM and how often a player, what his characters were etc. I tried hard to talk to him as a gamer, the teenage kind, and all the answers I got were basically pointing to the fact that he only regularly played the way I understand it during his Champions time and from then on.

I took the vids off youtube and am not inclined to put them back on, so it's my words against your intperpretation of a self-promoting piece he wrote.

Anyhow, I find Pundits current political stances so at odds with my own sense of decency, that I will not be posting until he clarifies his position in a manner I find acceptable. At this point in time, I want to disavow any sympathies for Pundit and thereby do not want to be associated with theRPGSite as of now.
Anybody who is backing Breitbart and the Alt-Right at this point in time is actually a force of obscurantism and an enabler of henious acts. And even though the gaming threads are thankfully politics free, this site is owned and associated with a person earning money with this site as well as political journalism.

So, bye.

And John, should you read this:
As a Mason, you most likely know, that there cannot ever be an ultimate dogma, no belief without exception, nothing set in stone 100% of the time. And ultimately even free speech has its limits. I always thought I'd quit this site because of your bannings and some violation of free speech. But your recent blogposts leave me shocked and sad. Sometimes, very seldomly, right now, sticking to your guns and principles of "100% free speech 100% of the time" is wrong. Bye.

EDIT To make it more clear: Free Speech puts a big responsibility on civil society. It's the hard way. And its the best. But it is hard because you can never just use talking points and dogma, you must always be ready to disavow or denounce those that abuse free speech or are just plain Nazis. Voltaire is right, but Voltair'll fight! And our host did not fight, he is silent and making excuses. So now here, from a free speech advocate, my disapproval.

Obviously impossible to respond with no evidence. And even if he says what you say I don't find it damning. One because it isn't like everyone has to like D&D and not liking it is some kind of heresy. And two because everything he complains about I know I encountered as a teen playing D&D, perhaps even worse. I think there are lots of people who had negative, rule lawyering, powergaming and creep experiences as kids and teens and never returned to the game.

I do agree with the political slide into paranoia and irrational hatred in Pundency but have decided to just avoid that cesspool of conspiracy theories same as I do the Youtube comments section.

Quote from: Settembrini;984696I remember him being actually disgusted by D&D players when they were wargamers because these supposedly were creeps who would torture animals in their backyard and would be supportive of the Vietnam war.

He really hung out with people enough to know that they tortured animals? And he didn't call the ASPCA? I would report that in a heartbeat.

Quote from: Settembrini;984696Anyhow, I find Pundits current political stances so at odds with my own sense of decency, that I will not be posting until he clarifies his position in a manner I find acceptable. At this point in time, I want to disavow any sympathies for Pundit and thereby do not want to be associated with theRPGSite as of now.
Anybody who is backing Breitbart and the Alt-Right at this point in time is actually a force of obscurantism and an enabler of henious acts. And even though the gaming threads are thankfully politics free, this site is owned and associated with a person earning money with this site as well as political journalism.

So, bye.

Wow, now that's "tolerance" for other peoples beliefs. Telling the Pundit that you won't play in his backyard unless he changes his beliefs to match yours only proves that you are anti-tolerance, anti-free speech and above all anti-freedom. Once you ban any thought, then any thought can be banned. You might want to go back and read 1984 by George Orwell and ponder the fact that the technology now exists to monitor people to a degree way beyond what Orwell envisioned. When you say you want to ban thought you are saying you want to live in the world George Orwell envisioned. IMO that world would not be one I would wish on anyone.

Can we please move this away from politics?

Quote from: Voros;984453And how would I answer what someone would do in Fate? I'm not familar with the system.

You probably wouldn't answer. But the question wasn't asked of you. It was asked of Anon and of the thread in general. :rolleyes:

Sorry your posts have tended to make sense until now, are you off your meds?

You said: "It's also telling that you felt compelled to comment on that sentence of mine rather than answering the question that Anon Adderlan asked."

Do you remember that? Did you remember to go to the washrooom today? Maybe call your nurse.

Quote from: Voros;985130Sorry your posts have tended to make sense until now, are you off your meds?

OK I get it. You are the only living example of Ron Edwards brain damage theory. Congratulations you have succeeded in proving he isn't 100% wrong. But you are still a moron.

Seriously what are you on about?? You said I didn't answer Anon's question. His question was about Fate. I pointed out I knew nothing about Fate so how could I answer his question. Then you act like you didn't just ask why didn't I answer Anon's question?? Even after I quote yourself back at you you continue to act as if you make any sense.

And you claimed that my not answering Anon's question was somehow 'telling'?? 'Telling' of what?

Not as telling as this all takes place after you ask a question and then declare you had no interest in the answer!

But you're acting as if you're the one making sense?? You think reverting to name calling somehow distracts from the fact that you're not making a lick of sense?

Please explain for all of us how this sentence is not contradictory nonsense:

"What are the procedures in Fate? I've no clue and less interest."

For the record, my question was...

QuoteI think even in #Fate a GM has the right to dismiss an offer if they don't feel it fits. And what procedures are normally used to answer such questions? GM #Fiat? A die roll?

...which is not specific to #Fate.

And the reason I asked is the difference between #Suggestion and #Mandate is an important distinction oft ignored in these kinds of debates, but that distinction depends on the procedures you implement in play. For example, there can be no #Mandate in any game where the GM or Group can simply refuse an offer, or mechanics need to be engaged to decide it, and most #StoryGames fit that description. So I'm curious under which circumstances it becomes such.

P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220For the record, my question was...



...which is not specific to #Fate.

And the reason I asked is the difference between #Suggestion and #Mandate is an important distinction oft ignored in these kinds of debates, but that distinction depends on the procedures you implement in play. For example, there can be no #Mandate in any game where the GM or Group can simply refuse an offer, or mechanics need to be engaged to decide it, and most #StoryGames fit that description. So I'm curious under which circumstances it becomes such.

P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

At this point I suspect it's a point of pride to derail threads with arguments and politics.

To answer your question from my point of view an my group it's what the GM says goes. We'll discuss after if we think it was unfair but generally we trust that there was good reason.

Have yet to play a system with a mechanical GM overide

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220For the record, my question was...



...which is not specific to #Fate.

And the reason I asked is the difference between #Suggestion and #Mandate is an important distinction oft ignored in these kinds of debates, but that distinction depends on the procedures you implement in play. For example, there can be no #Mandate in any game where the GM or Group can simply refuse an offer, or mechanics need to be engaged to decide it, and most #StoryGames fit that description. So I'm curious under which circumstances it becomes such.

P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

Depends, GMless storygames usually encourage everyone to reach an agreement. Some say that whoever is in charge of the story for that scene or turn has the final say but sometimes that is restricted by their control only extending over their character and not other players' characters. Games with GMs tend to encourage reaching a mutual agreement but the final say is the GMs.

Quote from: Bren;985138OK I get it. You are the only living example of Ron Edwards brain damage theory. Congratulations you have succeeded in proving he isn't 100% wrong. But you are still a moron.

*chortle-snort*

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

My posts are performance art.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

Neither can I. Which means its time to ignore Voros.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220For the record, my question was...

And in case you missed my (non-Fate related) answer I'll quote it.

Quote from: Bren;983905In the sorts of games I run? That depends. In some campaigns weather is something that is determined via custom seasonal weather tables so the answer is generally known. If weather isn't determined, I'd use a die roll with odds subjectively determined based on how likely rain is to occur based on season, location, climate, etc. So in central Florida on a summer afternoon – odds are good that some rain occurs for a short period of time. In the southwest American desert in summer, the odds are very low.

QuoteP.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

As for Bren, I was just taking the piss because of his nonsensical statement but I guess he couldn't let it go and tried to die on that hill for some reason. Enough derailing of the thread with his refusal to answer though let's move on.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

Why not both?  Hate tastes much better when expressed sarcastically.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;985714Hate tastes much better when expressed sarcastically.

That's forty frosty-cold ounces of hard truth right there.