Quote from: Voros;1008415Uh huh. More broad generalizations about 'storygames' that never mention the actual game.

You know, you're right. I shouldn't have brought story games into it, but I'm on this site for a reason. Even so, examples of the railroady types of games include My Life With Master, or any other game where you can change the trappings all you like but end up with the same basic story. There's no real choice there. There are only two or so ways the story can go.

Edit: It occurs to me that most Computer "RPGs", the good ones, anyway, are actually story games. "50 alternate endings" is still more limited than a tabletop RPG.

In order of importance:

1. Group
2. GM
3. Scenario
4. Rules

In general anything can make up for a weakness below it but not above it.

Quote from: Piestrio;1008534In order of importance:

1. Group
2. GM
3. Scenario
4. Rules

In general anything can make up for a weakness below it but not above it.

Then you should put GM and Group on the same level.

Quote from: AsenRG;1008824Then you should put GM and Group on the same level.

Piestro is saying that the group can make up for the GM but the GM can't make up for the group. Therefore I assume Piestro separated the two because the same person can perform the GM function for different groups. And while one group will be able to make up for a weakness in their GM a different group may not be able to make up for the weakness in the exact same GM. Merging GM and group loses the ability to differentiate that one group has that ability and the other group does not.

I don't think we can easily distinguish between a situation where the group makes up for the GM and one where the GM makes up for the group. I've certainly seen one or two groups of players who worked fine with an experienced, assertive GM who worked poorly with a inexperience and unassertive GM. As a player I try to play nice with a new GM rather than running roughshod over the newby in a similar way to how, as a GM, I try to be nice to a new player.

So while I agree with you that the group > GM arrangement that Piestro came up with is not always correct, I don't agree that we should ignore the distinction between group and GM.


And before you say it, yes I know that the GM can also be considered part of an RPG group, but the GM and the non-GM members of the group have different roles* so separating the two makes sense in the context of figuring out what matters to a successful campaign and whether it matters more than something else.


* And yes I also know that there are some rules where there isn't a GM. I consider those to be, at best, corner cases in the context of discussing successful RPG campaigns.

Quote from: AsenRG;1008824Then you should put GM and Group on the same level.

In my experience a really great group can get along just fine with a so-so GM but a great GM won't be able to save a bad group.

When I've had a really good group almost nothing could make a game not fun to be in.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;1008492You know, you're right. I shouldn't have brought story games into it, but I'm on this site for a reason. Even so, examples of the railroady types of games include My Life With Master, or any other game where you can change the trappings all you like but end up with the same basic story. There's no real choice there. There are only two or so ways the story can go.

Edit: It occurs to me that most Computer "RPGs", the good ones, anyway, are actually story games. "50 alternate endings" is still more limited than a tabletop RPG.

Fair enough, I think My Life with Master does fit that description, I think it best to just mention specific games rather than paint a whole subgenre with a broad brush. My Life.. is a very narrowly defined game but other storygames, like say Follow or 2001 Nights, are much less so.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;1008492You know, you're right. I shouldn't have brought story games into it, but I'm on this site for a reason. Even so, examples of the railroady types of games include My Life With Master, or any other game where you can change the trappings all you like but end up with the same basic story. There's no real choice there. There are only two or so ways the story can go.

Edit: It occurs to me that most Computer "RPGs", the good ones, anyway, are actually story games. "50 alternate endings" is still more limited than a tabletop RPG.

The other day I discovered that this is a thing, with a community and everything. The books do kind of remind me of video games in print form.

Quote from: Bren;1008842Piestro is saying that the group can make up for the GM but the GM can't make up for the group.

Yes, I simply disagree with this premise:). Hence, me thinking they should be on the same level.

QuoteI don't think we can easily distinguish between a situation where the group makes up for the GM and one where the GM makes up for the group. I've certainly seen one or two groups of players who worked fine with an experienced, assertive GM who worked poorly with a inexperience and unassertive GM. As a player I try to play nice with a new GM rather than running roughshod over the newby in a similar way to how, as a GM, I try to be nice to a new player.

And that's exactly why.

QuoteSo while I agree with you that the group > GM arrangement that Piestro came up with is not always correct, I don't agree that we should ignore the distinction between group and GM.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying "if you want to keep the arrangement that you can only cover for items below in the order", you should make the first item "Referee and Players".

QuoteAnd before you say it, yes I know that the GM can also be considered part of an RPG group,

Yes, I tend to believe that, but it wasn't part of my point in this thread

QuoteAnd yes I also know that there are some rules where there isn't a GM. I consider those to be, at best, corner cases in the context of discussing successful RPG campaigns.

So do I. Which is why I didn't say "you should have Referee, Group and System as the first item".

Quote from: Piestrio;1008948In my experience a really great group can get along just fine with a so-so GM but a great GM won't be able to save a bad group.

IMO, a great GM would be able to do exactly that - though that's more than you demand from the group (you said "great group, so-so GM", not "great group, bad GM").
Please note: I haven't actually seen a great Referee in person*, so that's just an estimate;). What I know is that I've managed to make a fun game with a definitely so-so group...by outpacing them, and basically pulling simultaneously on almost all (non-illusionist) tricks in the different kinds of games I've played.
But I'm not a great GM, merely passable, in my own estimate. Maybe in another decade or so, I might have a shot at such a title:D!


*Some of the GMs I've played with online could probably qualify. But then they had a bigger pool of players, and simply didn't take the bad players...so I'm not sure whether they could do that.

QuoteWhen I've had a really good group almost nothing could make a game not fun to be in.

I'm pretty sure an actively bad GM could. Been there, seen it happen (though after we gave him a honest chance, we relegated him to player status mid-session, and a player continued the campaign:p).

Quote from: Krimson;1008983The other day I discovered that this is a thing, with a community and everything. The books do kind of remind me of video games in print form.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten all about them (I was on my phone when I found the site). Still not sure what's the difference with gamebooks, myself.
I think I need to check, and thank you for the reminder;)!

For the record, I feel that the logic "storygames are games where only some outcomes are possible" is valid...but it still seems incomplete to me. I just can't put my finger on what is missing:).
Well, I know what is missing - a means to differentiate between storygames and mission-based campaigns, for example - but I don't know how to express it.
At least, not yet, but I'm considering the matter;).

Quote from: saskganesh;1008240You need a reasonable number of people who are willing to put the game on their Entertainment "A" List. That way you have both the warm bodies and a general ethic of commitment. Lacking both, you're left doing willy-nilly one shots.

Yes, this is my view to.  Even in my DCC campaign, which is the most loosey-goosey long term campaign I've ever run in the sense of lasting for four years now while not requiring any player to have to show up for any given session, I still have a core of about four guys who all nearly-always come.