So GURPS All Out Attacks for +2 damage and +4 to hit are story game mechanics?  Hero's aim maneuver?  Just about every aim manuever in just about every game that has one?

But, the player is awarding themselves a bonus.  They have to abide a trade off to do so but expending a benny in Savage Worlds is a trade off in with regards to when the character gets the re-roll or whatever.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621218Thank God real people aren't like that.

Just so you know Gleichman is probably the biggest ass on the site (and that takes some work on this site) and you'll get nothing but condescension and nonsense by talking to him.

Just a heads up

Quote from: soviet;621100Question for those who think storygames are not RPGs: which category would you put the following games into?

Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
Sorcerer
HeroQuest (the Robin Laws one, not the GW one)
D&D 4e

What I saw of Burning Wheel I liked. It looked like an interesting game system with some real possibilities, but it needed a lot of work.

Dogs in the Vineyard is misery tourism designed as an RPG. I have seen too many campaigns for this where the players didn't have a decent chance to make enough "win" situations, right out of the gate.

Don't know about Sorceror or Heroquest.

I sat in on a gaming round of 4e at GenCon the year it was released (2008) and even rolled up a character. Found the play wonky, with even more of a focus on math and stat/condition tracking than 3e, so didn't take it any further. The 4e DMG was actually pretty good, really good for a noob GM, but a bit sparse on resources for experienced GM's, but maybe that was just my preferences for lots of random tables, and generators, to help speed play.

Quote from: Piestrio;621220Just so you know Gleichman is probably the biggest ass on the site (and that takes some work on this site) and you'll get nothing but condescension and nonsense by talking to him.

What?... I have never had that experience, and have known him since 2005 or so.

Quote from: David Johansen;621219So GURPS All Out Attacks for +2 damage and +4 to hit are story game mechanics?  Hero's aim maneuver?  Just about every aim manuever in just about every game that has one?

But, the player is awarding themselves a bonus.

Excellent point, reasoned well. The debater in me applauds.

Quote from: Piestrio;621220Just so you know Gleichman is probably the biggest ass on the site (and that takes some work on this site) and you'll get nothing but condescension and nonsense by talking to him.

Thanks for the info. I kinds felt liked I was being punk'd, but wasn't sure.

Quote from: GameDaddy;621224What?... I have never had that experience, and have known him since 2005 or so.

I'll keep an open mind.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621193@CRKrueger

How would you define something like the ability to activate an opportunity to create a resource in MHRP.

Quick rundown for people who aren't familiar: Resources represent contacts/info/items that you get to help you out in the coming scenes. Normally you can only create them during transition scenes when there is a bit of downtime.

On the other hand, if the GM rolls a 1 on one of his die, you can spend a plot point to create one on the spot.

To me personally, this doesn't feel narrative. Yes it creates something that didn't happen before, but I always just assume my character is better at adventuring than I am, and it just represents him doing something before the fight that I didn't think of at the time that would have made sense.

NOW, discussing the idea of intent I was discussing earlier. Even if you consider the above narrative, what if someone only used it in situations where he had gained info from the fight as it was occurring.

What if in the middle of a fight with say, a Doombot and it rolls a 1 on its attack. I spend a PP saying "He revealed something specific about the way he is programmed to fight by that move, giving me a tech resource" (resources are linked to skills). Does this mechanic suddenly become less narrative based on the intent and how it is used?

Also, once again, @Krueger, I'm not trying to bait, I actually understood the point you made with DW, and I find I can agree with you there. I'm just trying to identify exactly what people mean by the terms.

Old FGU games like Daredevils have skills called subcultures. You use these to get informaiton, find contacts and know how stuff works.

So you can roll on High Society subculture to find out when the next Black and White Ball is happening, who is the current president of the Poohbar club or to see if you have a friend who is a member of the Poohbar club.

The latter never felt to me like a narrative exploit or broke my immersion or anything but I just added a useful NPC to teh plot by using a skill check.....

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621205And because that's how they did it back in the '70's, that's how they must always be? I disagree.

ICONS argues differently. Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)

I proffer Resolve as another example. Characters have skills, but they can put extra effort towards specific situations, and do better. This is a limited resource, as it is in reality, but it's possible.

Hero points can approximate real phenomenon.

But that was (refering back to Gleichman's post) how James Bond used Hero Points and they were great the game is great and its very much an RPG

Quote from: GameDaddy;621224What?... I have never had that experience, and have known him since 2005 or so.

Seriously?

He's implied that we're all stupid several times and that people who really like immersion suffer from a personality disorder.

Just in this thread.

Which is basically his game in EVERY thread. Before we ignore listed each other he flat out said I was a BAD PERSON, as in morally wrong, because I don't follow RAW in my games.

He's an ass extraordinaire.

Quote from: gleichman;621169Any yet from my experience of your posting both in and not in threads I was a part of- you are a perfect example of what I was describing.

Yet I've managed to have hundreds upon hundreds of highly successful and rewarding gaming sessions where everyone enjoyed themselves immensely with a very large variety of people, ranging from regular gaming groups to CON games to pick up games at the local RPG club.

Have you? Somehow, I doubt it. You seem too angry and bitter to have had many good gaming experiences.

I don't care how other people play RPGs; I never have trouble filling my table, and why should I care if someone storygames or plays totally by RAW or whatever? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs, to paraphrase Pres. Jefferson. So I'm perfectly fine with people who play White Wolf, even though I don't, people who play storygames, even though I don't, people who play D&D by the RAW even though I don't. I think people are entitled to do whatever they like with their own games

Do you? Somehow, I doubt it. Seems to me you're a better example of a rude, closed-minded, and hateful person, based just on the rude, closed-minded and hateful things you say. To everyone. In every. Single. Thread. You seem intolerant of others' playstyles. I'm not intolerant at all. I've never accused anyone of a moral failing because of how they play an RPG, like you do - regularly.

Heck... do you even PLAY RPGs? Or do you just sit in the dark and seethe about how "wrong" everyone else plays RPGs and how they should play like you, and the fact that they don't just drives you to come to TheRPGSite and go all attack dog on everyone because they don't play like you?

QuoteIn fact, you go on to admit as much in your reply to danbuster.

You seem to be confused about the distinctions I made in the post you're replying to about "Real Life" and "The Internet". Is it possible you're unable to comprehend the distinction between the two? Because I tried to make them clear by using the terms "real life" and "internet" to distinguish the two, figuring your second grade reading level would permit you to comprehend the difference. I overestimated you. My apologies. It won't happen again.

Please re-read what I wrote and see if you can pick up on these subtle context clues.

And yeah I may come here intent to argue, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in what I'm arguing for. Itchin' for a fight doesn't mean you don't have something worth fightin' for. Most people here have an axe to grind and come here to grind it, including (and especially) YOU. I'm just being honest about it.

QuoteFor my part, I'm going to believe your walk, not your talk.

Kind of like your complaining about hateful, rude, closed-minded people? Your walk is right down Hypocrisy Lane. Considering you seem to invite abuse at every opportunity as the masochist you are.

I've got your number and it's:

Gleichman
1 Hypocrisy Lane
Trollsville, Masochismchusettes
USA

Quote from: gleichman;621168Because people are both cowards, and subject to legal action. In bygone eras, I'm sure duels would have been accepted and completed.

Poppycock. No one with a modicum of self respect or a sense of porportion is going to fight a duel over the proper way to pretend to be an elf. Arguing on the Internet is no more akin to fighting a duel than playing a game of Call of Duty is participating in a real war.

Quote from: Ladybird;621146I used "narrative" because of CKrueger, but "metagame" works for me too, to sum up the entire thing; the more of my time I'm having to devote to thinking about how to play the game, the less I'm getting to spend playing the game. Whether that's thinking about the story or thinking about the system, it's not as much fun for me as immersing into the character. I can do those things any time I want (And I get paid to think quite intently about systems), but I can't role play any time, and that's what I'm at a game session to do.

We're currently playing the Leverage game, and I am enjoying it, but it requires a different style of thinking to, say, Shadowrun - similar genre (Heist games), but completely different due to the management of assets, plot points and flashbacks, and having to continually think slightly outside my character. I'm not sure I'd be able to explain it in more detail than that, but it's certainly a conversation belonging on the OG board here; I'm finding it far metagamier than In A Wicked Age, for example.



Bullshit. Nothing, inherently, about a "story game" makes it worse than a "role-playing game" It's just different, some people will like one, some will like the other. And that's fine. As long as everyone gets games they like, it's all good.

And there's nothing wrong with saying "that's a story game" or whatever. If someone's looking for a particular type of game, using that sort of descriptor - and explaining why you used it - is being helpful.

It's the way that those terms have been used, and the attitudes of the people using them, that are the problem. They're being used as hostile terms, and they're being taken as hostile terms. Now, we could ask both sides who started it, and they'd both say "the other side, for sure", but that doesn't solve anything. Until we get rid of the dickheads on both sides, that don't share the other side's choices and don't see why the other side should get things they like, we're going to have this problem.

I think it's more of a spectrum though.
There are lots of trad RPGs with narative/metagame mechanics, stuff like finding the right sized uniform (James Bond), knowing the right guy (Daredevils), Finding the right clue (Gumshoe), or even thinking of the right thing to ask or look for (Idea rolls in CoC).

Now you might call them meta game or narative but they are doing the same basic thing they are altering the game world ourside of the direct control of the PC and the GM.

In James Bond if a PC said I want to sepnd a hero point to have the guy have heard of my ruthless reputation.. I allow that. I want to make a Criminal subculture roll to see if there is a rival gang in Detroit that is in competition with the Mareni family (daredevils) etc etc

Now how is that different from I use my History of Intimidation Aspect to make the guy afriad of me. Or I use my Create Useful Supporting character narative point to create the Mareni family...

It's a spectrum. I think its great for certain games to have a clear character. D&D should play like D&D and not change hats between editions, the same is true of Traveller, BRP, CoC whatever  but to take a fractured and splintered hobby like RPGS and splinter it further into sub-niche micro categories  is a bizaare thing to do.
 
Do it if it helps you to pitch your game to the right market segment but if it's just a way of building barriers then you may as well be arguing about the ills of the People Popular Front of Judea vs the Popular People Front or arguing about what colour hats in Listers fast food franchise in the One True Religion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621248I think it's more of a spectrum though.
There are lots of trad RPGs with narative/metagame mechanics, stuff like finding the right sized uniform (James Bond), knowing the right guy (Daredevils), Findign the right clue (Gumshoe), or even thinking of the right thing to ask or look for (Idea rolls in CoC).

I don't think it's a spectrum. I don't think it's a question of the existence of a particular mechanic. I think it's a question of mechanical focus. If the mechanics are focused on enabling the player to portray a character in a fictional game world, with portrayal of that character as the goal and point of play, then it's an RPG

If, however, the mechanics focus on enabling the player to tell a story using the character as a device through which they can generate a narrative, with the narrative, not portrayal of the character, being the focus and point of play, then it's not an RPG.

The key thing about an RPG is playing the character is the point of play, it's what the mechanics are focusing on trying to accomplish. James Bond is an RPG because James Bond finding a fitting uniform is genre emulation. The player isn't using the mechanics to tell a story with the character as merely a narrative device, they're playing a Bondesque character and the mechanics exist to allow them to focus on Being James Bond (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) without any concerns for allowing the player to generate a narrative story which the character is ultimately subordinate to.

In a story game, the focus isn't really on the character except as a narrative device for the players to use to spin the story the player wants to see happen. The players are less being James Bond and more telling a story about James Bond. That's the significant difference between and RPG and a storygame in my eyes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;621233But that was (refering back to Gleichman's post) how James Bond used Hero Points and they were great the game is great and its very much an RPG

That doesn't really bear on his claim: Hero points are always, in every single case, a Storygame mechanic and any game that explains them in another way is doing violence to the concept of reality itself.

I described how they didn't have to be. He repeated his claim. I expanded with evidence and reason. He repeated his claim. etc.

The central point was this: Hero points can be wholly in-character, grounded, representing something real. (As much as RPG mechanics can approximate reality.)

What James Bond 007 did or didn't do is irrelevant to that point.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;621249The key thing about an RPG is playing the character is the point of play, it's what the mechanics are focusing on trying to accomplish. James Bond is an RPG because James Bond finding a fitting uniform is genre emulation. The player isn't using the mechanics to tell a story with the character as merely a narrative device,

Well put. Also has the virtue of being accurate.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;621249I don't think it's a spectrum. I don't think it's a question of the existence of a particular mechanic. I think it's a question of mechanical focus. If the mechanics are focused on enabling the player to portray a character in a fictional game world, with portrayal of that character as the goal and point of play, then it's an RPG

If, however, the mechanics focus on enabling the player to tell a story using the character as a device through which they can generate a narrative, with the narrative, not portrayal of the character, being the focus and point of play, then it's not an RPG.

The key thing about an RPG is playing the character is the point of play, it's what the mechanics are focusing on trying to accomplish. James Bond is an RPG because James Bond finding a fitting uniform is genre emulation. The player isn't using the mechanics to tell a story with the character as merely a narrative device, they're playing a Bondesque character and the mechanics exist to allow them to focus on Being James Bond (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) without any concerns for allowing the player to generate a narrative story which the character is ultimately subordinate to.

In a story game, the focus isn't really on the character except as a narrative device for the players to use to spin the story the player wants to see happen. The players are less being James Bond and more telling a story about James Bond. That's the significant difference between and RPG and a storygame in my eyes.

but the point at which they cross is the interesting point right?

Just skipped from the OP to the end of this already big thread, but a comment:

In the last 12-24 months I've subjectively noticed a change towards negativity not only on RPG boards, but in the entire discussion space on the parts of the internet that I frequent. I'm talking major media organs, Facebook, mainstream blogs. The term "troll" has entered general parlance. Three years ago, believe it or not, most normal people didn't bandy the word "troll" about. Now they do, and people are aware of the unwonted toxicity of online discussion. It's impossible to prove or quantify, but I think there's been a cultural shift of some sort. There is more fierce trolling, and equally various forms of reaction from intense moderation to disengagement.

In other words, it's not just the D&D edition wars.