It's entirely possible for something to seem silly to one person and not to another.  Why would that be an issue for you?  If someone says to me "I don't have any interest in playing D&D.  I hate rolling dice and the whole notion of pretending to be adventurers roaming around in dungeons fighting monsters just seems dumb to me" my response is "yeah, D&D probably isn't your thing."

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.'

I'm fine w/ story games (I just don't enjoy playing most of them). Many story games shift narrative/world/system/narration control aggressively away from the GM. PBTA games only allow the gm to do a certain limited number of things, only at certain times. Fate gets pushed pretty heavily as a game where "table consensus" decides everything, and players can declare whatever they want at the expense of GM-driven coherence (that's not actually RAW, but that's a different story). Worlds Without Master prevents the GM from even saying anything (until the player stops narrating). In Fiasco the GM barely exists.

One thing I always forget about this stuff is that only a tiny minority of the hobby plays these games. Look at the stats on Roll 20, go to any hobby store. At my local convention, there was a dust up because there were a bunch of GM's who setup story-games to run but everyone signed up for more traditional games. However, people who are into story games have a crazy, outsized presence on the Internet.

Quote from: Voros;1000824That a lot of words to say: 'I don't like storygames. I think, as I've never played one.'

There is some irony in talking about 'silly creative writing exercises' in an entire hobby built around what to outsiders looks like very, very 'silly playing pretend exercises.'

Unless you know exactly what they're talking about, and feel very much the same way, and are interested to read someone posting from that perspective.

It seems at least as ironic to read you trying to bash people for posting such perspectives, on the grounds that there's something wrong about disliking certain types of games.

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that there is some confusion about the categorization of such games sometimes as RPGs, and/or apprehension and displeasure at some of the design elements from those games finding their way into RPGs (often accompanied by the author, publisher and/or some players expressing views that they're somehow newer/fresher/better ways to play RPGs, and/or other forums' mods blocking negative opinions about them).

I've played a few Storygames and liked some, disliked some. They can be as different from each other as they are from trad rpgs so it's difficult to categorise them as a particular type of game.

What they do have in common is that they aren't trying to create or simulate a "realistic" world using the rules. The rules are there to guide the play in a particular fashion, not (necessarily) to help the GM adjudicate situations. This, for me, was the most difficult conceptual hurdle to cross. They can't be approached in the same way as a trad rpg - it just won't work. Even more "trad" Story games tend to use dice rolls for "whole task resolution" rather than the "partial task resolution" of trad games. So a story game might use 1 roll of the dice to determine if a thief broke into a bank, entered the vault and escaped with the swag. A trad game would most likely have multiple rolls for the same process. (Roll for hide/silence to avoid the guards, roll for lock pick, roll to spot the best swag, roll to avoid being seen on the way out).

So a game like Dogs in The Vineyard is a game designed to explore how far the players are willing to go to do what's important to them. That's something that happens all the time in games like D&D - but there aren't specific rules for it, it's all up to the players & GM. DiTV actually has rules that incorporate this idea into its task resolution system.

Here's an example: You are trying to convince a group of wrong-doers to submit to justice, do you escalate into violence to get your way?

So in D&D, you might give a speech and perhaps roll some charisma check and then the GM would decide (or roll to see) if they submit to you. If not, you would then decide whether to escalate into violence. If you did, you'd roll initiative and go to melee. The melee rules would then determine who won.

In DiTV, there are rules covering "discussions". Each side would use their skills (e.g. "convince unbelievers" or "do evil just because I can"), roll dice and at some point one of them would have "won" the non-violent argument (depending on the dice roll). The losing side (either the player or the GM) could then decide to escalate the situation into violence - usually because they could bring in some new skills ("dead-shot", "big rifle"), but the GM would let the player know that there would be a specific outcome for the loser (e.g. getting shot, attracting more guards, etc)*. If the player does decide to escalate, the new skills are used (more dice rolls) and the winner gets their way - with the outcome for the loser now applied.

* This is an example of "setting stakes".

Hopefully this example shows that these rules highlight a different approach from a trad game. You can get exactly the same outcome, but the rules emphasize different things.  

I do have some sympathy with the pundit's assertion that story games aren't rpgs, although I think it's too strong an assertion these days. Some are roleplaying with very little "game" attached. Others are games where you don't play a role, or if you do it's a shared role. Some seem to use strange "conflict resolution systems" But there are a few games that feel like rpgs to me - Dungeon World springs to mind. Once you "grok" it, it feels just like 1st ed AD&D, except without initiative!

Well, that was longer than I intended!

I think you, the OP, are grouping too many disparate things together under Indie RPG. For me, making decisions that my character could not possibly make does make immersion difficult. I remember playtesting the Buffy system and having fate points or something where I could change reality to a limited extent, and asking the system-maker "who is making this decision; who am I playing?" The points were there so that normal PCs could survive in an environment with Slayers and Demons, ETC. It wasn't a fatal flaw and we enjoyed the game but it made my immersion less than it might have been.

Lots of indie games are not storytelling games and are much more traditional. The one in my sig. ought to be traditional. I wrote the first edition in the Eighties.

Agreed.

Indie games /= storytelling games /= "storygames" (forge inspired).

Those three categories are so distinct I wonder if the OP ever played anything beyond it's first RPG (whatever that is).

Quote from: Skarg;1000845Unless you know exactly what they're talking about, and feel very much the same way, and are interested to read someone posting from that perspective.

It seems at least as ironic to read you trying to bash people for posting such perspectives, on the grounds that there's something wrong about disliking certain types of games.

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that there is some confusion about the categorization of such games sometimes as RPGs, and/or apprehension and displeasure at some of the design elements from those games finding their way into RPGs (often accompanied by the author, publisher and/or some players expressing views that they're somehow newer/fresher/better ways to play RPGs, and/or other forums' mods blocking negative opinions about them.

Of course you 'feel' the same, as I recall you once said that you liked reading Spike's patently inaccurate slams of 'new' games (eg. Feng Shui 2) as they justified you never checking them out. Not exactly a paragon of open mindness. I doubt you've even cracked open a storygame rules set let alone played one. Your third paragraph is typical OT grudgefucking.

Regardless, posting that you dislike a game you've never played or even read is what is truly 'silly' no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Quote from: Itachi;1000911Agreed.

Indie games /= storytelling games /= "storygames" (forge inspired).

Those three categories are so distinct I wonder if the OP ever played anything beyond it's first RPG (whatever that is).

Told you earlier in a post, never played them; simply read over the rules.

Quote from: Voros;1000931Of course you 'feel' the same, as I recall you once said that you liked reading Spike's patently inaccurate slams of 'new' games (eg. Feng Shui 2) as they justified you never checking them out. Not exactly a paragon of open mindness. I doubt you've even cracked open a storygame rules set let alone played one. Your third paragraph is typical OT grudgefucking.

Regardless, posting that you dislike a game you've never played or even read is what is truly 'silly' no matter how you try to rationalize it.

There's not enough free time in the week for me to try or even read everything.  If it makes you feel better, I will amend my comments by adding the following qualifier to my thoughts about Lovecraftesque - If the description of the game presented in this thread is accurate, it sounds like a game I have zero interest in playing.  It's not like my dislike is based on some subtle interpretation of the rules or something.  I'm not interested in any game where the primary mode of play is a shared narrative created on the fly by the group.  If the "world" in which the game takes place isn't managed by one individual (a GM) then it's probably not the game for me.  I mean we're talking here about rpgs...that's what I'm interested in.  Traditional GM and a group of players moving through his world.  That's what works for me.  A game that plays the way Lovecraftesque has been described doesn't appeal to me in any way, not even enough that I want to try it.  There's lots and lots of things I can make that sort of judgment about without actually having to go through the motions of buying, reading or playing the thing...

Quote from: Redforce;1000953Told you earlier in a post, never played them; simply read over the rules.

But you were more than happy to frame them as  "wussy theater geek crapola" and "fancy-pants pretentious games," which is why you are getting pushback.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;1001003There's not enough free time in the week for me to try or even read everything.  If it makes you feel better, I will amend my comments by adding the following qualifier to my thoughts about Lovecraftesque - If the description of the game presented in this thread is accurate, it sounds like a game I have zero interest in playing.  It's not like my dislike is based on some subtle interpretation of the rules or something.  I'm not interested in any game where the primary mode of play is a shared narrative created on the fly by the group.  If the "world" in which the game takes place isn't managed by one individual (a GM) then it's probably not the game for me.  I mean we're talking here about rpgs...that's what I'm interested in.  Traditional GM and a group of players moving through his world.  That's what works for me.  A game that plays the way Lovecraftesque has been described doesn't appeal to me in any way, not even enough that I want to try it.  There's lots and lots of things I can make that sort of judgment about without actually having to go through the motions of buying, reading or playing the thing...

The idea that an individual can't decide if something, a movie, a game, a past time, etc, is not for them without experiencing it first is something I've run into allot and its puzzling. Sometime it stems from a misunderstanding, that the person that's not interested in stating that whatever it is is objectively bad, silly, etc. But when its clearly started as a personal preference and the argument is still "Well, you haven't tried it, how can you judge?" Well, its true to a very literal extent but rational human being can make calls on what they'll like or not like. Everything isn't green eggs and ham. Trying to make a case for why they might like something or want to try it is one thing but essentially telling another adult that you know they're tastes better than they do is a little much.

Quote from: Nexus;1001023The idea that an individual can't decide if something, a movie, a game, a past time, etc, is not for them without experiencing it first is something I've run into allot and its puzzling. Sometime it stems from a misunderstanding, that the person that's not interested in stating that whatever it is is objectively bad, silly, etc. But when its clearly started as a personal preference and the argument is still "Well, you haven't tried it, how can you judge?" Well, its true to a very literal extent but rational human being can make calls on what they'll like or not like. Everything isn't green eggs and ham. Trying to make a case for why they might like something or want to try it is one thing but essentially telling another adult that you know they're tastes better than they do is a little much.

Agreed.  It's strange.  I don't need to see every rom-com to know I don't like rom-coms.  I don't need to watch the Saw movies to know I don't want to watch the Saw movies.  I'm not into torture porn.  I don't need to go out and find a group of gamers to sit around for several hours playing a given storygame in order to know I don't want to do that.  I can tell from the description - a description offered by someone who is presumably a fan of the game and trying to make it sound good I should note - that it's not my thing.  And I can also go so far as to say it sounds silly to me.  Even though I'm a geek who loves genre fiction and rpgs and so on there is still stuff that sounds silly to me.  LARPing sounds silly to me.  That doesn't necessarily mean it IS silly or that it's not fun for people who like it...it just doesn't sound appealing to me.  Rpgs in general sound silly to many people...it doesn't hurt my feelings that they feel that way.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;1001024Agreed.  It's strange.  I don't need to see every rom-com to know I don't like rom-coms.  I don't need to watch the Saw movies to know I don't want to watch the Saw movies.  I'm not into torture porn.  I don't need to go out and find a group of gamers to sit around for several hours playing a given storygame in order to know I don't want to do that.  I can tell from the description - a description offered by someone who is presumably a fan of the game and trying to make it sound good I should note - that it's not my thing.  And I can also go so far as to say it sounds silly to me.  Even though I'm a geek who loves genre fiction and rpgs and so on there is still stuff that sounds silly to me.  LARPing sounds silly to me.  That doesn't necessarily mean it IS silly or that it's not fun for people who like it...it just doesn't sound appealing to me.  Rpgs in general sound silly to many people...it doesn't hurt my feelings that they feel that way.

Yes, and also it's not as if these are black-box situations.  We humans classify things in broad categories to see if we want to pay more attention to them or not.  Sometimes, there are things we might like that never make it above that filter, but that's life and dealing with opportunity costs.  If I'm stuck on a desert island, but otherwise have my needs met while waiting for rescue, with 5 other people dead set on playing a game that doesn't sound too promising, I might go along with it out of lack of something better to do.  I might be surprised to find that I enjoyed the experience.  That doesn't mean I should always try things that don't look all that promising when my options are broader--only that occasionally I should to expand my options.

But if Voros didn't dog people for their preferences instead of committing on the topic, he'd hardly ever say anything.  So that's his preferences operating.

Quote from: Voros;1000931Of course you 'feel' the same, as I recall you once said that you liked reading Spike's patently inaccurate slams of 'new' games (eg. Feng Shui 2) as they justified you never checking them out. Not exactly a paragon of open mindness.

Yes, I liked reading Spike's takes on games (the main one I remember involved over-the-top trope-gone-wild Russian female pilots in beakskin bikinis flying hover bikes, or something, and another parody-culture version of Space Nazis or something, and abstract wealth rules where you can be a gazillionaire who can't buy a used car, etc). That was really hilarious and entertaining and very clearly demonstrated that it wouldn't be something I'd want to invest time in checking out (even if your assertion that they were fairly inaccurate slams is true, which I don't imagine they would be on the parts that are likely to affect my choice & interest, given what Spike wrote).

QuoteI doubt you've even cracked open a storygame rules set let alone played one.

Does Microscope not count? Does Mage: The Ascension?

QuoteYour third paragraph is typical OT grudgefucking.

Really? Do you really think so, or are you mainly just trolling this thread?

QuoteRegardless, posting that you dislike a game you've never played or even read is what is truly 'silly' no matter how you try to rationalize it.

Or it's someone changing the voice of the verb out of the subjunctive.