Quote from: blakkieI'm curious what you see this as? I know what I see it as, just curious what you do.

D20 came from wargaming roots.  As a community of players, there's lots of people that really dig on wargamey stuff that's not implicit in the actual engine of play.  The same attitude shows through in other things, too - and a game that focuses on it will dump story stuff to make room.

Which is totally awesome, if it's what you love.  If not, you can ignore it.

Quote from: blakkieThe more you tune it towards a specific type of game, whatever that type is, the more it takes to deviate.

Yes.  But currently, I haven't seen an RPG as utterly tuned to anything else.

Maybe Iron Heroes.  Maybe.

Quote from: fonkaygarryYes please. :hang:

And the award for best use of an emoticon in a forum post goes to...

Quote from: fonkaygarryYes please. :hang:

You sure? You'll be allowed, if not encouraged, to wear typical street clothes.....of a psychotic street mime. :teehee:

QuoteYour point: Based on mistaken and blanket assumptions.

So, if you care, what was your real point then? I seem to have misread you.

@Levi: We can go on and on about the specifics of certain stories within RPGs. We could also talk on and on about how to best represent tank battle command and control problems with the MoR or even within RPGs. "Story" is just one of many goals you can pursue with the MoR (and therby with RPGs),  and MoR is neat for many things, and "naturally" lends itself to create all kinds of shit like partnership therapy or training human resources managers.

Story is not the main goal of RPGs.

If you want a leisure activity (=game) that uses the MoR for creating a "story experience" whatever that may be for you, you have to change the system or at the minimum ignore all wargamey traits that Adventure RPGs happen to have. Which has been done terribly in the past, and which has been done at least funtionally in other instances.

Which is basically what you also say?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYes.  But currently, I haven't seen an RPG as utterly tuned to anything else.

Maybe Iron Heroes.  Maybe.

Levi, could you expand upon this?

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is basically what you also say?

Sure.

Here's where I may be misreading you.

It seems as if you're saying that creating adventure is somehow a more "legitimate use", or something similar, of the core method than 'creating story', or training managers, or doing partnership therapy.

I don't think that's the case.  The tradition is immaterial.

If this thing you just handed me is the best back-scratcher in the world, I don't give a damn that you invented it as a good way to get spaghetti noodles out of water.  My back itches.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesLevi, could you expand upon this?

Can you name an RPG that is completely honed to provide a specific experience of play, to the point where it leaves out the stuff you'd use to "play it differently"?

I can - but they're all story-makers.  With the possible exception of Iron Heroes, which is tuned to producing the Sword And Sorcery feel and awesome tactical combat as an emulation; it doesn't give a damn about story-structures and such.

QuoteIt seems as if you're saying that creating adventure is somehow a more "legitimate use", or something similar, of the core method than 'creating story', or training managers, or doing partnership therapy.

No! Not at all!
Training managers is waaaayyyy older than RPGs. As long as one can differentiate the method from the organically grown hobby, one is on the safe side, and may scratch whatever itch there might be. More power to you and your itching back!

But the fallacy of taking the part (MoR) for the whole (RPGs) leads to all those shitty "This is not an RPG!" "RPGs are story creation Games!" phantom debates.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCan you name an RPG that is completely honed to provide a specific experience of play, to the point where it leaves out the stuff you'd use to "play it differently"?

I can - but they're all story-makers.  With the possible exception of Iron Heroes, which is tuned to producing the Sword And Sorcery feel and awesome tactical combat as an emulation; it doesn't give a damn about story-structures and such.

No, I can't.

I have to admit further curiousity as to why you think Iron Heroes might do so, particularly when compared to other...umm...say, high "crunch"/tactical oriented RPGs.  Maybe compared to stuff like Spycraft 2.0 or something.

Mechwarrior?
Traveller?
Twilight:2000?
Harnmaster?
2300AD?
RC/OD&D?

All pretty up-front non-story high tactical, high simulation designs, especially  when taking into account the pubished adventures.

Quote from: SettembriniBut the fallacy of taking the part (MoR) for the whole (RPGs) leads to all those shitty "This is not an RPG!" "RPGs are story creation Games!" phantom debates.

Oh.

Yeah, I get you now.  Right on.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesNo, I can't.

You may want to read Breaking The Ice.  Not to play, just to see, because I'm not really sure I can explain it.

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesI have to admit further curiousity as to why you think Iron Heroes might do so, particularly when compared to other...umm...say, high "crunch"/tactical oriented RPGs.  Maybe compared to stuff like Spycraft 2.0 or something.

Spycraft is vaguely close-ish.  Iron Heroes strikes me as closer.  Might just be my reading of the two, though.

Quote from: SettembriniMechwarrior?
Traveller?
Twilight:2000?
Harnmaster?
2300AD?
RC/OD&D?

All pretty up-front non-story high tactical, high simulation designs, especially  when taking into account the pubished adventures.

Of these, I've only played OD&D and Twilight: 2000 (and no supplements).  I've only read Twilight: 2000. Neither struck me as being so tactical-and-simulative that they would interfere, for me.

But we're wandering into the nebulous arena of "my personal tastes".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou may want to read Breaking The Ice.  Not to play, just to see, because I'm not really sure I can explain it.

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear in my response.  

I was saying that I couldn't think of a "traditional" RPG that was specifically honed to particularly approach to the extent that different approaches were impossible.

I can definately think of examples in what you called "story-makers".  Or what I'm assuming you mean as "story-makers".

Quote from: SettembriniStory is not the main goal of RPGs.

Or at least not for everyone: still, I'd rather say that all RPGs inevitably generate stories, but the significance of those stories to individual players varies wildly from one person to the next, possibly even within the same group.

Quote from: SettembriniSo what?
The players have all degrees of freedom. Most importantly, they have the freedom to die in the first ten minutes, which is absent in most "story" venues, as they have script immunity. I´m playing a character, not emulating some  fantasy-hack-novel, or navel-gazing-Joss-Whedon-high-school trauma shit.

Your point: absent.

Wrong.  By "navel-gazing-Joss-Whedon-high-school trauma shit" I assume you're talking about Buffy.  Characters can certainly die in the first ten minutes, and they don't have to come back.  It's up to the player to decide to spend the Drama Points needed to return.

Is D&D 3.x one of these "story" games you despise so much too?  Because from the way the game reads to me you can come back from the dead there too if you spend the money.  In both systems you effectively have plot immunity.  If the character is willing to spend the resources it is assumed they can continue playing.

This point though gives me an idea - next series I start convince one of the players to get vamped early on.  I mean it *could* be done arbitrarily, but that would be shitty and in Buffy hard to do without player consent.  It was done in the very first episode actually, and would be neat to do in a game.  That's not everyone's cup of tea but my players like to get all conspiratory with the GM, so it would be fun.  

QuoteStory is not the main goal of RPGs.

It isn't a goal for you, it is the main goal for me and many others.  Story is always there, as story means nothing more than a series of imagined events with an introduction, exposition, climax, and coda.  But those are just fancy words for beginning, middle, and end.  Unless you're playing in some alternate universe or something, each and every one of your game sessions has those.

Now you may not give much of a shit if the beginning part introduces the conflict, or the middle part raises the stakes, or if the end part brings it all together.  It might or it might not, and if the game just kind of meanders around it doesn't really bother anyone.  But they are always there, and always present.

However, one can focus on this, as they can focus on the tactical elements, or the method-acting elements, or what have you.  And in my experience it can make for some totally awesome gaming.  But it's a specific kind of gaming, and not everyone's cup of tea.

I agree totally with the original post, that story has become a very loaded word.  To me it's just one aspect of the game that one can focus on or not, but it's always there in anything recognizable as an RPG, just as are tactics, method-acting, and so on.  To many people it means railroading, but that seriously is not what I do.  I've had that argument on other boards to the point that I finally posted my notes before a game and then the results of the game to *finally* convince the anti-story people that I was not railroading.  In brief, while I aim for this structure I don't decide exactly how I'll do it ahead of time.  Nor do I restrict my players, they have total freedom with their characters.  If they do something unexpected, I just ask myself what would be the coolest result of that action.