Quote from: Lynn;1000398I think there were a number of writers who dug into sociology theory or linguistics, tried to apply what they thought were more meaningful paradigms, and then promptly forgot their audience is RPG players. When I hear "frames" I think of this guy.

When I hear "frames" I think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Heroes

Oh, heck, if someone else bought the thing, and wants to try it out as a one-shot, I'm usually game. I'll do that for board games too. Probably wargames, although I haven't been asked.

I have a group of accommodating players that will try a short game of something else occasionally to humor me and give us all a break.  But I'm aware that's all they are doing, and don't draw from that well too often.  They just aren't into different systems and mechanics enough to ever do more than that.

Story games tend to be like board games, in that the rules are clearly set in stone and are the ultimate arbiter rather than the GM. Often there is no GM, but just someone in charge of keeping track of things. The rules don't allow any freedom and you just act it out like a computer.

Quote from: Simlasa;1000408That's the rock my ship always crashes on. Storygames often strike me as being much more competitive than 'trad' RPGs... despite the claims of being cooperative... and I have a much narrower swath of people I'm willing to play competitive games with.

Yeah... it's always a meta social clique game in my experience. You all say you want to cooperate, but it's really permission-based group concensus, which is just social combat by another name. Public flogging of another's dreams by committee is not what I find a fun time, and I can easily be a social monster if I want to (often why I am targeted first by other "pretenders to the throne").

We can just be catty to each other in real life. I don't need a game veneer for that.

All RPG's are different takes on "Let's Pretend." Saying you don't get let's pretend is saying you didn't have a childhood.:-)

But, really, I think it's already been said -- it's just a different approach to the same animal, and trying to view either through the lens of the other is probably going to lead to a disconnect. Beyond that, if it isn't your thing, it isn't your thing. This doesn't make those for whom it IS their thing weird or crazy. It's just a different recipe.

In my experience there are three types of 'Indie Game':

1) An experimental game that is basically unplayable, but is vanity published and then praised and promoted by a clique of individuals because the creator is part of their tribe.
2) A conventional RPG, for all intents and purposed, neatly packaged into a digest or just unusual sized book and published under the umbrella of it being an indie game.
3) A game with genuinely original or well delivered ideas, which is successful enough to get mass produced, garner third party support and license arrangements and then still call itself 'indie' even though it sells much more than other 'traditional' rpgs do.

Take ya pick. It's all part of my GNS theory (Games, No Shit!).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1000510Story games tend to be like board games, in that the rules are clearly set in stone and are the ultimate arbiter rather than the GM. Often there is no GM, but just someone in charge of keeping track of things. The rules don't allow any freedom and you just act it out like a computer.

Want to give an actual example of this? The best known storygames like Fiasco, Microscope, 1001 Nights don't remotely fit your description of not allowing 'any freedom and you act it out like a computer.'

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1000510Story games tend to be like board games, in that the rules are clearly set in stone and are the ultimate arbiter rather than the GM. Often there is no GM, but just someone in charge of keeping track of things. The rules don't allow any freedom and you just act it out like a computer.

True storygames of the storytelling sort often are somewhat oddly rigid. And sometimes with absurdly more rules to lock things down than standard RPGs. A few though get the job done in a more sane manner.
Storytelling tends to have no rules at all really other than taking turns adding to the story. Which is why they arent games or RPGs.
Storygames of the book sort, like Lone Wolf are rigid by their very nature and are not RPGs.
And then you have standard RPGs posing as storytelling games.

Universalis was the first of these I came across way back.

As for indie RPG games in general. These are ever going to be VERY hit and miss and probably more often a miss due to their very nature as oft experimental or off the wall approaches. Finding one that clicks can be a long long road sometimes.

Well, this thread has convinced me of one thing - I don't ever want to be in a room with a group playing Lovecraftesque!  Ugh that sounds like a horrible experience of almost Lovecraftian proportions!

Quote from: Omega;1000605True storygames of the storytelling sort often are somewhat oddly rigid. And sometimes with absurdly more rules to lock things down than standard RPGs.

What games are you actually thinking of? Do you have an example? Is Universalis an example of a storygame with rigid rules or a RPG 'posing' as a storygame?

First rigid example that comes to mind is Carolina Death Crawl.  You know exactly when characters are going to die, pretty much, so the overall story/plot is known, you're just finding out who and how.

Quote from: Voros;1000600Want to give an actual example of this? The best known storygames like Fiasco, Microscope, 1001 Nights don't remotely fit your description of not allowing 'any freedom and you act it out like a computer.'

All of those games actually fit the example perfectly.

You can only use Microscope to do the specific thing it was intended to do, and there is no room to go beyond its phases or turn orders. It's not like D&D where you can use it for many different types of games, or create extra rules or interpret them. Everything is set in stone straight from the start.

That doesn't mean it is bad; I have Microscope and want to try it sometime. But it is true that it's basically a super rigid and specific formula for creating a very specific experience.

Same with Fiasco.

I'm not familiar with 1001 Nights.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1000688All of those games actually fit the example perfectly.

You can only use Microscope to do the specific thing it was intended to do, and there is no room to go beyond its phases or turn orders. It's not like D&D where you can use it for many different types of games, or create extra rules or interpret them. Everything is set in stone straight from the start.

That doesn't mean it is bad; I have Microscope and want to try it sometime. But it is true that it's basically a super rigid and specific formula for creating a very specific experience.

Same with Fiasco.

I'm not familiar with 1001 Nights.

Microscope is a ton of fun. I've played it a dozen times, and it always results in really cool surprises and twists. The next time I start a fantasy campaign, I'm going to use Microscope to design the world; I think it'd be a perfect match.

The game Lovecraftesque I mentioned above has lots of similarities. I read that Microscope was a big influence on the design of Lovecraftesque, and it definitely shows.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;1000615Well, this thread has convinced me of one thing - I don't ever want to be in a room with a group playing Lovecraftesque!  Ugh that sounds like a horrible experience of almost Lovecraftian proportions!

Why? What's so abominable about Lovecraftesque that elicits such a strong reaction from you?