Common ground with storygamers?

[JonTheBrowser]

I've played a Dungeon World hack and my comment to the GM straight afterwards was that it felt just like any rules-lite trad game to me. Sure, I had a minor role in picking the results of a 7-9 roll, but all I did was pick a category, then the GM would narrate the detail.

[Apocalypse] World, if it's anything like the hack of it that I played, shouldn't even be pretending to be a storygame IMHO. Baker should have written it under a pseudonym.

The thing you need to remember about Baker's designs is that they are love songs to specific game design ideas he has floating around in his head.  When he has an idea in terms of game design, he thinks about it, talks around it in his blog and then publishes a game about it.  Then he blogs more about the idea that he was trying to point at.

For Apocalypse World the idea he was singing a love song to was positioning.  The idea that from a current position in the fiction, when you add in genre expectations and recurring themes, what choices are available to a player that are appropriate and interesting?  Those are the "moves" you have available to you as a player.  And that 7-9 roll list thing is his way of tying the mechanics back into the fiction.  And then he extends this idea of positioning and moves to the GM as well.  That whole time that it looked like a normal game, the GM was picking from a list of "moves" and implementing them.

Here's some text from the Apocalypse World "How to GM this game" section:

   Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction.

Basically this is what the game is about.  Everyone at the table doing things that are appropriate to the game's fiction from a list the designer picked in advance.  And if the list is sufficiently well crafted, you'll have the illusion of being able to "do anything" as long as what you pick is appropriate to the game (I do NOT mean this in the plot/railroad sense).  The game text even talks about deceiving the players in terms of the basis for GM decision making.

   Address yourself to the characters, not the players. “Marie, where are you this morning?” not “Julia, where’s Marie this morning?” “A woman comes up to you, her name’s Pelt, and she’s anxious to get back to her family. It’s obvious she is.” It’s obvious she is makes this something the character knows and sees in Pelt, not exposition straight from you to the player.

Pretty damn traditional advise on keeping players in a in character point of view.  More:

   Remember the principles. Remember to address yourself to the characters, remember to misdirect, and remember to never speak your move’s name [don't use system language -me]. Say what happens to the characters as though it were their world that’s the real one.

The emphasis is in the original text.

   AGENDA
• Make Apocalypse World seem real.
• Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.
Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no other.

It's best to view Apocalypse World as a statement about game design-- specifically about what are appropriate things to do from a given point in the fiction.  One lots of people are having fun with and are hacking like mad into spin-off games.  While other people lump it in with Universalis or My Life With Master just because of the Author's name on the cover.

I think Silva was right when he said it was about politics.

[1of3]

Dungeon World, if it's anything like the hack of it that I played, shouldn't even be pretending to be a storygame IMHO. Baker should have written it under a pseudonym. Then again, the hack of it that I played may have been very unlike the original, and I only played one session of it.

[...]

Or "hardcore storygames" versus "hybrid storygame/RPGs".

One small correction: Dungeon World is not by Baker. The game Dungeon World is based upon, Apocalypse World, is. Dungeon World is by LaTorra and Koebel. There are also some other games that use the AW rules, for example Monster Hearts.

Anyway, I don't think there is a single criterion to grasp storygames. There is a bunch of seemingly unrelated features, not only in the rules, but also the physical appearance of the books, the way the rules are explained etc.

Also note that storygaming has developed certain was to approach games and talk about games. Of course, this perception factors back into products when people from the community make up new stuff.

Some of these things were already mentioned in the topic: Deciding from an author's perspective what should happen next, then making up a justification. This has been around forever, but some storygames make that the preferred style, while the trad school frowns upon this behaviour.

Note that this, while common, is not a required feature in storygames. Also even if the game is up for it, you can do things the other way round, of course, and act from your character's perspective. Most of the time no one will even notice.

There are more subtle differences, though. If you look at the GM section in AW you will notice that great emphasise is put on spontaneity. The way the GMs job is depicted, spontaneity is great virtue. This is in fact a common feature in storygames.

Very important is the way storygames talk about the gaming group. From a storygamers perspective, roleplaying is rather democratic group activity. Storygamers would not utter sentences like "At my table, I would not allow it..." Rather they'd say, "I'd rather not have this in play..." Of course, these notions come back into the book texts.

[Omnifray]

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what's going on in the game's fiction.

Because of course, leaving aside for a moment the formalisation of the GM's options into "moves", no trad GM ever had this principle in mind...

Basically this is what the game is about.

You mean, it's a trad game?

With the GM's options formalised into "moves" that can be interpreted as broadly as a horoscope so they always fit almost any situation... ?

Everyone at the table doing things that are appropriate to the game's fiction from a list the designer picked in advance.

So basically, apart from the list, it's trad.

And if the list is sufficiently well crafted, you'll have the illusion of being able to "do anything" as long as what you pick is appropriate to the game (I do NOT mean this in the plot/railroad sense).

Because trad players never restrict themselves to picking what's appropriate to the game...

[That's the 2nd instance of sarcasm in this post. Sorry. I'm a terrible person, what can I say.]

So, in short, the only difference is the list. The systematisation. And that's not really a foreign concept to trad games either. And since the player doesn't have to define what they do in system terms, what it really means is that it's a trad game, except that the GM's actions aren't quite *completely* open-ended, in the sense that the GM has to be able to shoe-horn what he wants to do into a very broadly defined "move".

Seems like a case of the Emperor's New Clothes to me.

   AGENDA
• Make [Insert RPG name here] seem real.
• Make the players' characters' lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.
Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no other.

That's basically entirely trad, with a sandboxy bent though not quite puristic sandbox.

One small correction: Dungeon World is not by Baker. The game Dungeon World is based upon, Apocalypse World, is. Dungeon World is by LaTorra and Koebel. There are also some other games that use the AW rules, for example Monster Hearts.

Ninja'd by that joker upthread.

If you look at the GM section in AW you will notice that great emphasise is put on spontaneity. The way the GMs job is depicted, spontaneity is great virtue. This is in fact a common feature in storygames.

What, because trad GMs don't care about spontaneity all of a sudden?

[3rd instance of sarcasm in 1 post, I really must get myself checked out.]

Emperor's New Clothes, Emperor's New Clothes, Emperor's New Clothes.

[TristramEvans]

The thing you need to remember about Baker's designs.

The thing is, Dungeonworld isnt one of Baker's designs, its simply inspired by it, so quoting AW's rules doesn't really apply totally. It's also getting caught up in language when they are in essence meaningless compared to the rules. Before people started getting all exceited about "storygames", EVERY RPG on the planet used story/fiction metaphors to describe role-playing. Beyond a brief fad adopting film terms, its pretty much gone hand-in-hand with every RPG since they realized they werent actually wargames anymore.

In the end, the only important thing is whether the rules FORCE you to play in a "storygame style". Just as White Wolf games were full of pretentious wankery about storytellers and narratives, but their system was a bog-standard RPG mostly cloned from Prince Valiant, thetre are many games people throw the label of "storygame" at that you can as easily play as a traditional RPG as you can play OD&D as a storygame.

[1of3]

What, because trad GMs don't care about spontaneity all of a sudden?

No, please don't get me wrong, it's a question of degree and prevalence. Just like the other points I raised.

[JonTheBrowser]

Because of course, leaving aside for a moment the formalisation of the GM's options into "moves", no trad GM ever had this principle in mind...

That's the point.  In Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker is trying to say something about game design and he's doing it inside the context of a game that produces play that is largely indistinguishable from trad play.

You mean, it's a trad game?

Yes.

With the GM's options formalised into "moves" that can be interpreted as broadly as a horoscope so they always fit almost any situation... ?

I suppose so.  I'm not saying Baker succeeded, I'm just explaining what he tried to do and by extension, how Apocalypse World is a totally different beast from his earlier designs.

So basically, apart from the list, it's trad.

Which was the whole point of the design.  To show that the range of appropriate moves from a given position in a traditional RPG might not be as limitless as we all like to think.  Is he right?  I don't know.  Probably not.  Doesn't change the fact that he's doing something very different here than in his previous designs and lumping them together is, like Silva said, a matter of politics and not reason.

Because trad players never restrict themselves to picking what's appropriate to the game...

This is exactly the point.  That they do.  It's not some big innovation, but a spot light on what Baker thinks what is going on during play and then designing specifically with that in mind.

So, in short, the only difference is the list. The systematisation. And that's not really a foreign concept to trad games either.

So what?  The game isn't about being some new ground breaking design.  It's very, very "normal" in terms of what it does at the table.

it's a trad game, except that the GM's actions aren't quite *completely* open-ended, in the sense that the GM has to be able to shoe-horn what he wants to do into a very broadly defined "move".

As well as interpreting the player descriptions into their moves as well.  Every participant is basically making choices from a list of moves that are designed to cover what's appropriate to the game.  Then they produce a list of resutls which have been designed to cover what's appropriate to the game

I'd say that Apocalypse World is Vincent Baker's statement that what people do in traditional play is great and has been all along.  I would call it his 'graduation' out of the foundational Forge idea that there is something wrong with how RPG play works.  His departure from it.  Just like how Dogs In the Vineyard might be considered his final piece of closure in his departure from Mormonism.

It's a widening of scope though, rather than a tightening of the definition of RPG like Pundit does.  Pundit says only his way is valuable if we're talking about RPGs.  Vincent Baker is saying lots of ways are valuable, and then presents Apocalypse World as a demonstration of why traditional play is good and what he thinks is going on when people play that way (they make a bunch of appropriate choices based on their position relative to other people at the table and the fiction).  The reason that this is so very fucking obvious to us is that it is.  He's finally taking a look at traditional play in a manner serious enough to make a game about it.

People are not all apeshit about Apocalypse World because it's providing some new unique play experience that's never been seen before. People like it because it provides traditional RPG play with a fuck-ton of guidance about what are appropriate choices for a given place in the fiction for each participant.  This includes making choices that are appropriate to the character's archetype.

Dismissing it because "oh, it's not that innovative after all" is 100 percent missing the point.

Silva was correct when he called Pundit's decision to consign Apocalypse World discussions to "other games" politically motivated.  It is a trad RPG.  Perhaps Vincent Baker's first published one.  And Baker's current approach now represent a line of thinking that accepts traditional play and story based play without needing to retreat into a "true RPGs" vs "horrible story games" position like Pundit has trapped himself inside of.  Even to the point where Pundit can't even see what's going on because of ideological blinders forged from his reaction to the author's previous works and the works and writings of Baker's known associates.

[JonTheBrowser]

The thing is, Dungeonworld isnt one of Baker's designs,

Omnifray clairfied what he meant and I'm choosing to concentrate on Baker's work given the topic of this thread.  Don't like it?  That's nice.

[Omnifray]

Silva was correct when he called Pundit's decision to consign Apocalypse World discussions to "other games" politically motivated.  It is a trad RPG.  Perhaps Vincent Baker's first published one.  And Baker's current approach now represent a line of thinking that accepts traditional play and story based play without needing to retreat into a "true RPGs" vs "horrible story games" position like Pundit has trapped himself inside of.  Even to the point where Pundit can't even see what's going on because of ideological blinders forged from his reaction to the author's previous works and the works and writings of Baker's known associates.

Well I guess that since I've inflicted this thread on the Pundit's own forum it's only fitting that in the end we should all be basking in his glory (m**********rs).

And it seems we can all agree that Apocalypse World is a trad game. And the fact that it seems to have tripled Baker's sales only goes to bolster the Pundit's argument about storygames being a tiny niche pursuit and commercially s**t. [I have no other comment to make on the validity or otherwise of that argument.]

What then to make of the Forge-loyalists who despise trad play and use "trad" as an insult but happily play Apocalypse World?

[JonTheBrowser]

And it seems we can all agree that Apocalypse World is a trad game. And the fact that it seems to have tripled Baker's sales only goes to bolster the Pundit's argument about storygames being a tiny niche pursuit and commercially s**t.

The disconnect with Pundit's argument is that it assumes that the designs coming out of a community dedicated to indy game publishing were making claims about commercial success.  That something that does not have commercial success as it's primary goal might not be about commercial success is pretty much a tautology.

What then to make of the Forge-loyalists who despise trad play and use "trad" as an insult but happily play Apocalypse World?

Many of them are not playing the game right.  They do not listen to the instructions given in the text that tell them how to run the game and instead import their own "skills" from other story games and play a hybridized form of the game.  I'd say many haven't actually played the game itself, but their own massively house-ruled version.

For those that do actually play it like it was designed to be played but hate or disparage "trad" games probably fall into a few related categories.  

Those who don't even realize that's what's going on and because Apocalypse World has thematic based resolution (from the lists of both appropriate moves and <6,7-9,10+ result lists) it feels right to them despite being in a more traditional framework.

Then there would be those who have different definitions of trad, or at the very least, those who only hate a subset of traditional play and in error, lump all traditional games into the same category.  They then like Apocalypse World because it supports a particular type of traditional play that doesn't rub them the wrong way.  And since they've been militantly warring for so long, they've conflated "games they like" with not-traditional and thus falsely conclude that if they like it, it must not be a "trad" game.

And then there would be those who make the exact same mistake as the Pundit and categorize the book based on the name on the cover rather than what it does at the table.

[RPGPundit]

The disconnect with Pundit's argument is that it assumes that the designs coming out of a community dedicated to indy game publishing were making claims about commercial success.  That something that does not have commercial success as it's primary goal might not be about commercial success is pretty much a tautology.

The Forge Theory crowd was never strictly-speaking about commercial success; I'm quite willing to stipulate that.  In fact, because of their pretentious elitism they often wore their commercial failure as a badge of honor: if you sold too much then you must be going soft, while if your ashcan game sells all of a dozen copies then it means that you're truly one of the great intellectuals writing something so profound only the creme de la creme can appreciate it.

However, the basis of GNS and Forge Theory was that if you did what they told you to do, it would make your game a "more successful" game. What I'm pointing out is that by any definition that isn't idiotic, a "more successful" game in the hobby would mean one more people would want to play and own.  The fact that games based on GNS and Forge Theory thus consistently FAILED to attract commercial success in the hobby is pretty damning proof that the assertion being made about producing "superior" games is fatally flawed.

RPGPundit

[Daztur]

For me at least the best thing Storygames do is (generally) make it less likely that the GM will railroad the game by setting up rules that makes it hard to do so unless the GM publically over rides them. This means that if you have a moderately railroady GM playing a trad game and switch over to having the same GM run a story game instead that short circuits his railroady instincts you'll generally end up having more fun and think "wow, story games are a whole lot of fun!"

Of course it's better to just not rail road your player in the first place, use random tables a lot, etc. etc. etc. but being rail roaded sucks enough that if playing a story game can kill it, that generally makes up for all of the annoying aspects of them.

So there's some common ground there: player agency. You can do that through having a bunch of rules that gives players spelled out metagame powers or through good GMing, but both OSR and SG types tend to be pretty strongly against plot-heavy rail roading that seems to still be pretty popular in most of the rest of the hobby (adventure paths, etc.).

[Benoist]

You don't fix people with rules.

[Daztur]

You don't fix people with rules.

*shrug*

Sometimes the rules can be a crutch. It's better to fix the damn broken leg, but having a crutch is still better than hopping about on one foot.

For example a good friend's FATE and Burning Wheel campaigns are fairly decent but when he runs D&D he's tends to fall into rail roading without meaning to since he plays off the mechanics for players making declarations a lot when doing FATE and Burning Wheel and it seems that when running D&D when he doesn't have those player metagame mechanics he falls into linear play.

Fixes him at least, for certain values of fixed. For example he had the players read a letter and had the fate of a city turn on their "read" skill (success = good result so the city they're rushing towards is safe, failure = bad result so the city they're rushing towards was burned down by goblins) which works for him but gives me headaches.

But one reason that I drank the story game kool-aid for a while (I got better thanks to reading lots of Old Geezer posts, a fun 1ed campaign and Call of Cthulhu and whatnot) was that I saw my friend's GMing get better right before my eyes due directly to rules. It was like flipping a switch. Story games beats linear plotting out of DMs and that can make a big difference even if Story Games are a lot less fun than traditional games at the hands of someone who knows that they're doing (at least for me).

[RPGPundit]

You don't fix people with rules.

Word.

[silva]

Story games beats linear plotting out of DMs and that can make a big difference

This is true. I dont like storygames at all, but always stole great anti-railroad ideas from them.