The only story game I looked into was Thirsty Sword Lesbians and it had more mechanics dedicated to relationship-building and flirting than swordplay. It was both awkwardly rules-light while being extremely restrictive, a bizarre combination.
I haven't actually played many storygames, but before I left Chronicles of Darkness fandom I was really annoyed when they introduced the beats and conditions mechanics. You basically get XP for deliberately choosing to make failed rolls into fumbles. Also, the rules for fumbles were toned down compared to previous editions because it was too punishing for this to be viable. I hate this because it's a dissociative mechanic that pits the player and character against each other. That's stupid design imo
I talked to some PbtA players and they basically told me Storytelling system is a misnomer that sucks at storytelling and that "story games" like PbtA were made in direct response to its many, many problems. I've come to despise ST long before then and what they told me makes perfect sense. I feel pity for the remaining ST fans, but most of them are set in their ways and aren't gonna switch to PbtA or another system better suited to the experience they actually want to play.
When the term "storygame" comes up, the first thing I think of is
Hillfolk/Dramasystem. Mostly this is just because this (now hilariously dated) video was my introduction to the whole concept.
Storygaming largely became a thing during a period of time where I wasn't paying much attention to RPGs, so I missed it. I never bought or played
Hillfolk, but it sounds like a pretty quintessential storygame.
Ehhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game. When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading." Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.
So, I would define mechanics as "storygame" mechanics when they: a) limit or remove the agency of the DM, or b) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal. So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will). Another example would be metacurrency designed to allow the players to change the events happening in the game proactively. This would be any metacurrency that allows a player to create an event, NPC, plot change, etc. This is different from "luck points", "fate points" or Savage Worlds' "bennies." Usually luck points or the like allow the player to avoid the consequence of a roll or event that is happening to them. It's reactionary. Storygame metacurrency allows the players to invent or redirect the events of the game before those events even occur. One type, where the player can spend points to "create" a tool, aid, etc. (i.e. "I look around for something to open the drawer" [spends a point]; DM: "You find a screwdriver sitting on the table") is very close, but it really depends on whether the points allow the players to guide the story or just react to it. That's how I would categorize "storygame" mechanics...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 10:00:49 PM
Ehhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game. When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading." Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.
So, I would define mechanics as "storygame" mechanics when they: a) limit or remove the agency of the DM, or b) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal. So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will). Another example would be metacurrency designed to allow the players to change the events happening in the game proactively. This would be any metacurrency that allows a player to create an event, NPC, plot change, etc. This is different from "luck points", "fate points" or Savage Worlds' "bennies." Usually luck points or the like allow the player to avoid the consequence of a roll or event that is happening to them. It's reactionary. Storygame metacurrency allows the players to invent or redirect the events of the game before those events even occur. One type, where the player can spend points to "create" a tool, aid, etc. (i.e. "I look around for something to open the drawer" [spends a point]; DM: "You find a screwdriver sitting on the table") is very close, but it really depends on whether the points allow the players to guide the story or just react to it. That's how I would categorize "storygame" mechanics...
I feel like that Schrodinger mechanic was introduced as a way to keep adventures moving rather than grinding to a halt when the players fail a roll and the adventure book or GM isn't equipped to keep things moving.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 04, 2024, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 03, 2024, 10:00:49 PM
Ehhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game. When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading." Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.
So, I would define mechanics as "storygame" mechanics when they: a) limit or remove the agency of the DM, or b) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal. So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will). Another example would be metacurrency designed to allow the players to change the events happening in the game proactively. This would be any metacurrency that allows a player to create an event, NPC, plot change, etc. This is different from "luck points", "fate points" or Savage Worlds' "bennies." Usually luck points or the like allow the player to avoid the consequence of a roll or event that is happening to them. It's reactionary. Storygame metacurrency allows the players to invent or redirect the events of the game before those events even occur. One type, where the player can spend points to "create" a tool, aid, etc. (i.e. "I look around for something to open the drawer" [spends a point]; DM: "You find a screwdriver sitting on the table") is very close, but it really depends on whether the points allow the players to guide the story or just react to it. That's how I would categorize "storygame" mechanics...
I feel like that Schrodinger mechanic was introduced as a way to keep adventures moving rather than grinding to a halt when the players fail a roll and the adventure book or GM isn't equipped to keep things moving.
I guess that depends on the game, but every time I have seen it the mechanic acts as a "this is what I want to happen" (In other words, the player gets to create or delete something in the setting to allow the player to have the narrative of the game follow a path more to his liking). Which is pretty much textbook storygame...
QuoteThe only story game I looked into was Thirsty Sword Lesbians and it had more mechanics dedicated to relationship-building and flirting than swordplay. It was both awkwardly rules-light while being extremely restrictive, a bizarre combination.
Because game is very specific in its topic - so mechanics is restrictive to put game fiction in specific style and genre, but there are lot of things you can do it ignores - and it's then matter of ruling between you, GM, or you GM and whole table.
QuoteI haven't actually played many storygames, but before I left Chronicles of Darkness fandom I was really annoyed when they introduced the beats and conditions mechanics. You basically get XP for deliberately choosing to make failed rolls into fumbles. Also, the rules for fumbles were toned down compared to previous editions because it was too punishing for this to be viable. I hate this because it's a dissociative mechanic that pits the player and character against each other. That's stupid design imo
I'd point out generally WOD and COD are not storygames, but normal trad games, that fed users with extremely narrativist GM propaganda usually not really supported by mechanics whatsoever.
In storygames I've played - only a lil bit, there were certain incentives like XP for deciding to follow action in desperate position (threatning most severe consequences) or even simply XP for failing in risky situation (you learn from own mistakes thing). Alas I do not remember such weird switch mechanics even though storygames are purposefully dissociative and they mock immersionism.
QuoteI talked to some PbtA players and they basically told me Storytelling system is a misnomer that sucks at storytelling and that "story games" like PbtA were made in direct response to its many, many problems. I've come to despise ST long before then and what they told me makes perfect sense. I feel pity for the remaining ST fans, but most of them are set in their ways and aren't gonna switch to PbtA or another system better suited to the experience they actually want to play.
Bot Storyteller culture and Storygames culture are very narrative-centric but they reach it with so extremely different methods I don't think someone used to one of those styles would easily adopt to another one.
QuoteEhhh, the true "storygame" is designed so that the narrative normally created from the events in a game becomes the primary purpose of the game. When a DM forces a particular narrative on a game (the game must follow the story from scene to scene), it might be termed "railroading." Storygames "rebel" against that to try and give the players primacy (or at least equality) in determining the story (and this is key) ahead of time.
That I deeply disagree. Vast majority of RPGs considered to belong to Storygame culture are dogmatically against determining story ahead of time. In fact they are most improvisational school, one often basically barring GM or players from any prep.
What storygame structure means to uphold is specific genre or type of fiction - and that indeed is predetermined. You play Blades - then you play band of criminals, no going back.
Quoteb) create the ability for the players to direct the events of the game towards a specific goal. So, for example, mechanics that restrict a DM from adding or changing the challenge of an encounter without the use of metacurrency would be storygame mechanics (some games will have a player's action create a metacurrency for the DM to "spend" to change the circumstances of the game... something the traditional DM has in their arsenal at will).
I must say I remember such mechanics only from Zweihander and Conan, neither storygames, but even then it was used more like luck points, and DM doom points could force player to re-roll good roll and pick worse result or give adv to bad guy.
Now personally I'd categorize RPG as storygame if a) there is strong enforcement of genre in both game procedures and PC mechanics (like everything non-genred is resolved by GM fiat or simple lack roll, game purposefully make out-of-genre experience empty b) the equivalent of skill rolls is more narrative than reduced to simulationist task - so they can encompass whole larger endeavour in one roll c) rolls are almost always more complext than win/lose d) DM is more open with consequences and reward of roll and may actively discuss it and bargain with players and vice versa. e) every roll (or other use of mechanics) is meant to significantly change fiction - there should be not mere misses or empty rolls. Always good or bad consequences to push situation
For me, one of the defining aspects of a story game is that it has mechanics that force a certain style of play or certain story beats to happen. In a traditional game, one player could propose a romantic relationship between their character and another character. In a game like Night Witches, one of the playbooks has a move that a player can use to declare that a character (including a player character) is now their character's true love. The characters are now deeply in love with each other. Your character is straight? Well, not any more. In Pasión de las Pasiones, one of the playbooks has a move that allows them to declare that another character (including a play character) is a liar. If they roll well enough, that other character is now a liar even if that contradicts how the other character has been characterized and what has already been shown. You are a liar now and everything is retconned to match that including who your character is. Don't like that? Tough shit. It's not just talk about telling stories in the GM's section. The game gives players tools to make the story go the way they want it to or has rules to enforce the style of play that the writer wants. For me, it's that mechanical enforcement of story elements that makes something a story game not just some advice in the GM section about telling a story.
Then there are the odd games that are designed to tell a particular story with particular characters and nothing else. I mean games like Lady Blackbird or Yazeba's Bed & Breakfast that are intended to be played with the characters you are giving using their predetermined storylines. Some. like Lady Blackbird, don't even include the option of making your own characters at all. I would call these a sort of story game. There aren't very many of these though and many are buried in the pile of undifferentiated rubbish that is itch.io
QuoteFor me, one of the defining aspects of a story game is that it has mechanics that force a certain style of play or certain story beats to happen. In a traditional game, one player could propose a romantic relationship between their character and another character. In a game like Night Witches, one of the playbooks has a move that a player can use to declare that a character (including a player character) is now their character's true love. The characters are now deeply in love with each other. Your character is straight? Well, not any more. In Pasión de las Pasiones, one of the playbooks has a move that allows them to declare that another character (including a play character) is a liar. If they roll well enough, that other character is now a liar even if that contradicts how the other character has been characterized and what has already been shown. You are a liar now and everything is retconned to match that including who your character is. Don't like that? Tough shit. It's not just talk about telling stories in the GM's section. The game gives players tools to make the story go the way they want it to or has rules to enforce the style of play that the writer wants. For me, it's that mechanical enforcement of story elements that makes something a story game not just some advice in the GM section about telling a story.
Important question however is - what trigger those moves.
Because generally SG tends to follow clearly "fiction first" paradigm and its usually Game Master who decide whether conditions for some specific move are fullfilled.
Considering majority of SGs are unfortunately written by leftists (which is a pity because there is massive field of traditional conservative conventions and archetypes that could be used (I mean original D&D classes are both simulationist skill packages and ARCHETYPES) - I'd expect that for "We are true lovers" move to be declared by GM, the players have to at least engage in some flirt or something. Or dunno sleep with each other.
So usually there are well ways to avoid getting into range of another characters personal relationship moves.
Quote from: Wrath of God on May 18, 2024, 03:00:48 PMImportant question however is - what trigger those moves.
Because generally SG tends to follow clearly "fiction first" paradigm and its usually Game Master who decide whether conditions for some specific move are fullfilled.
I did misremember one thing about the acuse someone of lying move. It's a basic move. Everyone can do it. The trigger is that your character dramatically accuses someone of lying. There are no other conditions mentioned. Also, the transcendentant love move doesn't need a roll. You just declare it and it is so.
That's odd compared to other PBTAs I've read, I gonna check it.
(I mean I can kinda get this Pasiones thing since it's mean to be ridiculous Latin Telenovela.)
OK, I've checked Night Witches. The move in question is "TRANSCENDENT LOVE: Choose your one and only lover. Your bond is
intense and unshakable. The first time you take the Mark "Embrace Death and face your final destiny," immediately erase it."
Not gonna lie playbook moves could be better written - but for me RAW - that move means you can mark only pre-existing lover in that way, not any PC or NPC in fiction whatsoever. So don't sleep around and you'll be fine :P
EDIT 2: OK I checked Pasion thing - seems it's utterly on purpose to emulate how ridiculous Latin TV is.
Night Witches is one of those PbtA games that is both too restrictive and too vague at the same time. Some of the moves have very restrictive triggers that you have to watch for during play. At the same time, these triggers are very vaguely defined. There's a movie that triggers when someone tries to get their by acting like a hooligan/lady/natural born Soviet Airwoman. What is trying to get your way by acting up like a natural born Soviet airwoman look like? Hell if I Know. It's not very well defined. One of the results is to just make someone do what you want. Other PCs can refuse to do it but then you both get marked. Getting marked is bad. It's really bad. This is how you die in the game. Some of the moves, like that one, don't really have defined triggers like that. They just happen when the character does that thing.
Quote from: Crazy_Blue_Haired_Chick on April 02, 2024, 02:25:44 PMThe only story game I looked into was Thirsty Sword Lesbians and it had more mechanics dedicated to relationship-building and flirting than swordplay. It was both awkwardly rules-light while being extremely restrictive, a bizarre combination.
A lot like that actually. Somehow both rules light and vague and overly restrictive at the same time.
I mean I'd have to study whole game and I'm not that into its subject. I just refered to this specific move - and while I totally agree it should be written better (it seems all playbook specific moves were written in as laconic way as possible to fit on specific sheet design) I think grammatically correct and also kinda correct in spirit interpretation of Transcendent Love is - that there has to at least be affair before player can mark anyone as True Love.
If I was really rule lawyerish I'd even interpret it as - you have to be in monogamous rel, and you cannot sleep around before to trigger it.
It doesn't actually say that unless you quint at it fairly hard though. It just says, "Choose your one and only lover". The playbook specific moves in Night Witches are full of vague shit like that. Name the senior officer that has taken an interest in your career. I guess that's a thing now.
What mechanics scream "story game" to you?
Not really a mechanic but the use of the term 'scene' screams storygame to me. I think the term has slithered its way into normal games but it just seems to be assuming a narrative flow like a book or movie.
I usually start with meta currency used to add narrative content to a scene or lore up to and including major world building by the players.
For me, it's the idea that structure for game play is secondary to the improv drama experience.
QuoteFor me, it's the idea that structure for game play is secondary to the improv drama experience.
For me that mentality smells more with semi-LARP school popular with World of Darkness (no game procedures or structure, strong GM role to project drama) - on the other hand RPGs that are nowadays counted as SGs often has game structures much more authoritative than old school - like whole game cycle of Blades in the Dark.