Quote from: RPGPunditI don't get why these guys can't just accept this and create their own hobby rather than trying to keep force the former model on all of us and our hobby.

I don't see any "forcing" going on; I don't think anyone expects, say, Dogs In the Vineyard to overtake D&D ever. When people start running down games you like, sure, they're being arseholes, but when people are promoting games that they do like/have designed themselves, that's entirely reasonable.

As far as "Why don't they go create their own hobby?" goes: I would say that there is enough overlap between people who are interested in pure Collaborative Storytelling experiences and people who are interested in pure Virtual Experiences (not to mention people interested in a blend of the two) that it's legitimate for one group to promote their products to the other.

Quote from: MaddmanThey are still very game-like.

Could you rephrase this or explain? I do not see how the game-likeness has much to do with the conversation. Candyland is game-like but it's not what most people (including me) would consider a roleplaying game (or indeed Adventure Game or Story Game).

Quote from: jhkimAs for distinguishing narrative-paradigm games from experiential... Well, the term "Adventure Game" has some momentum. Does that sit well with you? So the separatists among narrative-paradigm could use the term "Story Games", while separatists among experiential-paradigm could use the term "Adventure Game". Those who want to mix ideas could continue to use "RPG".

I think that "Adventure" Game wouldn't accurately reflect an RPG with a focus on Immersion / "Virtual Experience" about a non-adventure topic.  Wuthering Heights: the Roleplaying Game, for example.

Quote from: maddmanEven in indie-land, GMless games are very rare, as are games where GM duties are shared. And in most of them the players ability to introduce plot points or make factual declaration are still subject to GM veto/adjustment and/or are limited by some resource. They are still very game-like.

The idea that there's games out there where the players run the show and the GM does nothing and the people who make them want to take over gaming (DUN DUN DUNNN) is a huge strawman. This does not exist. The few games that fit your collaborative storytelling definition, as I noted, would likely be argued as not technically RPGs even by their devotees.

Players introducing plot points or making factual declaration actually is a type of shared GM Duties...

This article isn't making any judgement about things being games, or not games.  I may do that elsewhere, but not in relation to this article.

What it does is identify a set of techniques that support two different types of narrative construction.  In one, the game focuses more on the players collaboratively building the narrative.  In the other, the game has a greater focus on the players experiencing the narrative world.  Is there overlap?  Of course.  Many "Storytelling" games include immersive / virtual experience parts of play.  Traditional / Immersive / Virtual Experience Roleplaying games also create stories.

The key point to take from this article, I believe, is that the techniques that will enhance the Collaborative Storytelling approach will not improve the immersion / "Virtual Experience" players get from a game.  They will decrease it.  You may see that it's a good trade -- players get a bit less Immersion for more control of the narrative.  Less Immersion in a better narrative.  That's not a wrong approach -- but it does assume the collaborative storytelling will lead to a better narrative... which it may not.  

If you goal is to create games for people for who  Immersion / "Virtual Experience"  is the primary appeal of the game -- the Collaborative Storytelling techniques should be considered very carefully, and more than likely avoided.

Since the Forge / GNS theories seem to overwhelmingly support / endorse the Collaborative Storytelling approach ("Narrative") over the Immersion / "Virtual Experience" approach (doesn't exist and/or brain damage, selfish, etc), those theories are not useful when attempting to create a traditional Roleplaying game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenCould you rephrase this or explain? I do not see how the game-likeness has much to do with the conversation. Candyland is game-like but it's not what most people (including me) would consider a roleplaying game (or indeed Adventure Game or Story Game).

The game-likeness means that there's a rules structure that everyone agrees to rather than a freeform kind of play that would go on with a collaborative storytelling.  Metagame mechanics are one such example - the players might be able to introduce plot points or make factual statements, but have to expend a game resource to do so and are subject to GM veto.  The GM is still very much in charge of the game, he just has some extra means of player input.

Ah. You've missed the point.

Quote from: MaddmanThe idea that there's games out there where the players run the show and the GM does nothing and the people who make them want to take over gaming (DUN DUN DUNNN) is a huge strawman.  This does not exist.  The few games that fit your collaborative storytelling definition, as I noted, would likely be argued as not technically RPGs even by their devotees.

Then why do the Forge Crowd get so upset at the mention of GM-empowerment; and why are they constantly trying to chip away at the traditional position of the GM as the final arbitrer of what happens in the game?

I agree that there are few gm-less games, but the strawman here is YOU taking that and turning it into the argument, when the REAL argument is that the Forge are creating games and pushing strongly for GM-disempowerment, wherein players can MAKE DEMANDS about setting on the GM that the GM isn't allowed to say "no" to.

RPGPundit

QuoteThe game-likeness means that there's a rules structure that everyone agrees to rather than a freeform kind of play that would go on with a collaborative storytelling. Metagame mechanics are one such example - the players might be able to introduce plot points or make factual statements, but have to expend a game resource to do so and are subject to GM veto. The GM is still very much in charge of the game, he just has some extra means of player input.

Having a GM has nothing to do with something being a game.  Collaborative storytelling does not preclude structured rules.

You could have a storytelling game with a solid rules structure, like Once Upon A Time.  You could have a traditional RPG that was heavily railroaded and the player's decisions and dice rolls basically amounted to nothing -- that would not be a game.

Now, Freeform Collaborative Storytelling... that's not a game.  And the extent to which particular RPGs or Storytelling games are, or are not, games is probably best left to another thread.

QuoteI agree that there are few gm-less games, but the strawman here is YOU taking that and turning it into the argument, when the REAL argument is that the Forge are creating games and pushing strongly for GM-disempowerment, wherein players can MAKE DEMANDS about setting on the GM that the GM isn't allowed to say "no" to.

GM Disempowerment will decrease the Immersion / Virtual Experience.  

GM Disempowerment will increase the Collaborative Storytelling.

It's a technique that you can choose to use in your game, but it makes more sense if you're using it with an understanding of what it does.

Because the forge (and indie games in general) are all about experimentation.  Taking the assumptions of traditional RPGs and playing with them to see if something interesting comes out.  The traditional GM/player structure is one of those assumptions.  And from my own experience and talking to people online it is almost never the players trying to wrest power from the GM, it's the GM who wants to try something new and fun.  There's no conspiracy to render GMs impotent, just some games that do things a little differently.

Quote from: StuartGM Disempowerment will decrease the Immersion / Virtual Experience.  

GM Disempowerment will increase the Collaborative Storytelling.

It's a technique that you can choose to use in your game, but it makes more sense if you're using it with an understanding of what it does.

I can agree with this, though I don't consider virtual experience and immerison to be the same thing.  Immersion is the sense of 'being there', and can be just as easily achieved with a cut scene approach as with a virtual world approach.

QuoteI can agree with this, though I don't consider virtual experience and immerison to be the same thing. Immersion is the sense of 'being there', and can be just as easily achieved with a cut scene approach as with a virtual world approach.

I used the "Immersion / Virtual Experience" format because I usually say "Immersion" but it seems to help if I explicitly link that to "Virtual Experience" instead of Narrative Enjoyment, Imaginative, Descriptive, Deep-Focus, Flow, etc. etc. etc.

Quote from: RPGPunditThen why do the Forge Crowd get so upset at the mention of GM-empowerment;

Because for everyone who's had a bad "players running amok" experience, there's someone else who had a bad "asshat GM" experience?

Quoteand why are they constantly trying to chip away at the traditional position of the GM as the final arbitrer of what happens in the game?

Because, erm, there's already plenty of RPGs out there where the GM is the final arbiter? The Forge is all about producing independently-produced games, and there's little point in endlessly replicating what has gone before; they experiment with GMless or GM-light RPGs because that's what's experimental. If the world had been different, if most RPGs were GMless, the Forge would be pumping out GM-heavy games by the truckload.

QuoteBecause, erm, there's already plenty of RPGs out there where the GM is the final arbiter? The Forge is all about producing independently-produced games, and there's little point in endlessly replicating what has gone before; they experiment with GMless or GM-light RPGs because that's what's experimental. If the world had been different, if most RPGs were GMless, the Forge would be pumping out GM-heavy games by the truckload.

Just to be clear -- Independent doesn't mean Experimental.  Not in music, film, theatre, literature, or game design.

Perhaps instead of calling Forge games "Independent" they should be called "Experimental"?  (No snark intended -- I'm serious here)

Quote from: StuartJust to be clear -- Independent doesn't mean Experimental.  Not in music, film, theatre, literature, or game design.

I know, but the Forge people recognise that there's little point designing a non-experimental Indie game in the current market unless you're convinced you are doing a vastly better job than the current major games out there. The Fantasy Heartbreakers all sunk without a trace, for example, because they were trying to out-D&D D&D, and even if some of them were better than D&D they weren't better enough to grab a bit of the market for themselves.

QuoteI know, but the Forge people recognise that there's little point designing a non-experimental Indie game in the current market unless you're convinced you are doing a vastly better job than the current major games out there.

And based on the Forge theories, they would be unable to do so.  Meaning -- Forge theories support the creation of a different type of game.  If you tried to make a non-experimental indie game that was similar to D&D, using the Forge theories, you would almost certainly fail.

QuoteThe Fantasy Heartbreakers all sunk without a trace, for example, because they were trying to out-D&D D&D, and even if some of them were better than D&D they weren't better enough to grab a bit of the market for themselves.

Sure, if they were a "Heartbreaker" (Dream Maker, Love Taker) -- they would be failures by definition.

But there are certainly more Fantasy RPGs than just D&D!

Ars Magica
Blue Rose
The Burning Wheel
Castles and Crusades
Elfquest
HackMaster
Legend of the Five Rings
Rifts / Palladium Fantasy
Shadowrun (D&D + Cyberpunk)
Warhammer Fantasy
...

Just look at all the RPGs in the Fantasy Genre  (Whoa!)

I don't think any of those would be described as a "Fantasy Heartbreaker"... and there are LOT'S of Indie games on that list.