Quote from: jedimastert;621182In story games you basically have one type of participant. That is the person that is narrating what is occurring (or has just occurred) in the imagined world. There are various set ups to how a given player gets a turn controlling the world and what aspects they may control. But is boils down to them each taking turns controlling what goes on in the imaginary world.

That just isn't my experience of these games. Maybe some of the more recent storygames stuff like Fiasco plays out like that, i don't know. But I've read Dogs, Sorcerer, and BW and none of them work like that. I've also played a lot of HeroQuest (and played a lot more of Other Worlds, which is a game I published that takes inspiration from several aspects of HQ), and none of them work like that either. In all of these games, you have some element of stake setting and the like, but that's done before the roll and the final narration is up to the GM. The GM in turn has a distinct role and each player has ownership over their character just as they do in any other RPG. The kind of play you're describing just isn't the one outlined in the books I've read or the one I see being played out at my table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621181First of all, there are these things called game shops and bookstores, and some of them actually carry product you can buy after reading the cover.  All these narrative games in question take the time to put words, phrases and taglines on the front and back cover, but except in a few cases they never seem to actually reference any of the System that Matters.

One example is TechNoir: high tech, hard boiled roleplaying
If I hadn't been dealing with the Forge semantic bullshit advertising for years now, I might be tricked into thinking this is something remotely resembling a traditional RPG.
 
You'll get hurt, sure, but what kind of pain will you deal out? - Code for telling stories about your character's interactions and consequences.

spark new fires of hardboiled crime novels and cyberpunk science fiction - Code for "this is a storytelling game, you're creating fiction"

create tangled and compelling plot webs - Code for abstracted story threads, this game doesn't have world in motion verisimilitude.

Basically the adcopy is telling Narrative gamers come and get it, but if you don't know the lingo, you might think "Cool a new game like Cyberpunk:2020, Shadowrun or Interface Zero." and you would be very wrong.

Well, I agree that that particular game's back cover blurb is pretty vague. Knowing nothing about technoir other than this blurb I would assume it to be either a storygame or something with storygame/cinematic leanings such as FATE or Feng Shui.  But I'm not at all convinced that this is some deliberate attempt to deceive.

Quote from: jedimastert;621182RPGs have 2 types of participants:

1. (Game Master) The person(s) running the world and its non-player inhabitants (Usually only one, but sometimes there are more than one if the game master has helpers)

2. (Player) The people interacting with the imagined world from the point of view( with the established limits of a being in that world) ) of an inhabitant of that world. (There are a variety of 1st person or 3rd person styles in the portrayal and interactions of their inhabitant. They can also run multiple beings from that world as long as they are always interacting with that world from the point of view of those inhabitants they control).

   Most importantly incidents can occur that go against the desires of the participants and they must abide by the results. Players can and will make choices that go against the expectations of the game master. Events will occur that go against the desires of the players.

    If you have at least one person in mode 1 and one person in mode 2 you have a RPG.

I wanted to come back to this point. I ran a session of Other Worlds tonight. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the bolded sentence. But (possibly apart from that bit?) what you write here describes how my play goes.

The main sequence of tonight's game was the characters travelling through a forest that was infested with unseelie. Three chariots full of troglodytes being pulled by yeth hounds came bursting through the trees chasing down a spirit deer. The characters intervened and hopped on to the back of the last chariot, fought the troglodytes, and then chased after the rest. We had one PC take over the reins of a chariot, another try to rush ahead via magic and set up a tripwire at neck height, another try to throw a spear through a wheel, and another leap across into the next chariot and fight the troglodytes there. When the last chariot was dealt with we had a big stand-up melee.

If I'd run the melee using D&D each player would have described what their character was doing in the first person, rolled to hit and damage, and I'd have described the results. Running it under Other Worlds each player described what their character was doing, I clarified what kind of failure stakes might be appropriate (if you fail this he'll kill the prisoner, for example, or he'll shoot an arrow into you), the player rolled their character's relevant ability against a DC set by me, and I described the results. Is there a difference? Sure. But are the two methods completely different types of activity? No.

Haven't had the time to respond to these today, so this is gonna be a kitchen-sinker.

James Bond - James Bond is an RPG, but it is a specific type.  It attempts not to emulate the world of James Bond, which is our world, or even the fiction of James Bond, but specifically emulate the James Bond movies.  As a result, there is a definite "4th wall" aspect to JB Hero points that you would have to at the very least call metagame.  For example, if my agent was caught and I spend a Hero point to force the bad guy to monologue and tell me his secret plan because I can't possibly escape, that's definitely a narrative mechanic.

WFRP1 - WFRP1 is an RPG, but it has one mechanic that allows me to cheat death, Fate points.  I can spend a Fate point to say "No, I don't die." and then the GM figures out what happened to me.  Definitely a narrative mechanic even though WFRP1 is not a storygame.

Jasyn v. Gleichman - Obviously people can expend more effort in certain things, that goes without saying, however, Gleichman has a point - a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".   Also generally speaking I don't know how Jasyn's work, any mechanic that gives such abilities to players only because they are "Heroes" is making a narrative decision based on dramatic importance.  That's why I hate Mook Rules always, there is no way to classify them honestly without going to levels of protagonism/antagonism.

Emperor Norton - What actually happened?  The bad guy missed, but because the GM rolled a 1, that creates an opening, so you can spend a Plot Point to explain and describe what that actually means, that when the bad guy missed, he missed so badly, it exposed a weakness that you can use as a bonus die via a tech resource.  To me, this is the very definition of narrative gaming, the mechanics are allowing you to narrate what happened, in other words, you are spending the point to choose what's occurring and your character has absolutely no way to make that happen, it's completely metagame.  That's why if you use MHR as written, it's a highly Narrative RPG that could also be called a Storygame.  The only thing that might keep it in RPG territory is that the core resolution mechanics could be used without Plot Points or Doom Points (at least IIRC).

Traditional RPG vs. Narrative RPG - If the core mechanics of the game cannot be used from an IC viewpoint, it is not a Traditional RPG.  If those mechanics are there for the purpose of granting narrative control, it's a Narrative RPG.

Wargame vs. RPG vs. Storygame - If the game has the majority of the mechanics used from an OOC viewpoint, it's not an RPG.  If the reason for that is for tactical reasons it's a wargame, if for narrative control, it's a storygame.  There can be wargames with rpg elements, storygames with roleplaying elements, just like there can be Narrative RPGs and Tactical RPGs(or Wargame RPGs).

@Benoist:

I think the shades of grey thing is really important honestly. I don't have a problem with categorizations of RPGs and Story Games, I just think that the idea that there are concrete lines that everyone is going to agree on is a thing.

I mean, when you look at something like Dogs in the Vineyard, I clearly see a Storygame. When I look at D&D (all flavors) I clearly see an RPG. Something like MHRP, I see falling onto the RPG side, but leaning towards storygame. Funny then that I see Leverage (which uses the same base system, but more narrative mechanics) as a storygame that leans towards RPG. With all the stuff in the middle though, I think that any hard line would be hard to place. And I could see the argument of MHRP being a storygame or Leverage being an RPG being a reasonable argument.

And I think that some people, not saying you, are attempting to put both a hard line AND putting a value judgment on it, which I think until that stops, people will continue to argue their game is one or the other, to avoid their game being called badwrongfun.

Personally, I don't give a shit if a game I like is a storygame and some people think storygames are the death of rpgs., I like Leverage, I think its really fun, but not everyone has the same level of "notgiveashit" that I do.

@CRKrueger

That is a fair assessment. And actually your categorization of Wargame vs RPG vs Storygame, and how games can lean different directions is perfectly in line with my way of thinking.

Like I would consider 4e D&D an RPG that leans Wargame.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Jasyn v. Gleichman - Obviously people can expend more effort in certain things, that goes without saying,

Apparently not, as my saying so was RAPING REALITY. If I'd have known I was talking with a stone cold fanatic, I might have approached the conversation differently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580however, Gleichman has a point - a system with a proper mechanic like Stamina or Focus points could quantify different levels of mental and physical exertion without relying on a general additional mechanic known as "whatever points".

Except that wasn't his point, at all. Even a little bit. If it's yours, I'm willing to discuss it calmly. (As you don't seem to be a stone cold fanatic.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Also generally speaking I don't know how Jasyn's work, any mechanic that gives such abilities to players only because they are "Heroes" is making a narrative decision based on dramatic importance.

Anyone can have Resolve, but great people, heroes and villains, have more: they're more determined, more driven than the norm.

Proof case: look at the lives of the greatly successful. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, for example. Such people are, almost to a man, far more driven than the general populace. In Infinity terms, they have a higher Resolve.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580That's why I hate Mook Rules always, there is no way to classify them honestly without going to levels of protagonism/antagonism.

I would suggest Morale is a perfect IC "mook" rule. It isn't that getting shot drops them dead, it's that getting shot takes them out of combat, because they stop trying to fight.

Couple that with Wound penalties (more damage = less effectiveness) and lower skill levels (meaning, after Wounds, they're pretty ineffective even if they did get up to fight), and you have mooks: people who are defeated in one attack. "Crunch all you want, we'll make more" bad guys.

That seems pretty reasonable, to me.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621592Personally, I don't give a shit if a game I like is a storygame and some people think storygames are the death of rpgs.

I think there is a conflation (verging on correspondence) between Storygames and GNS theory.

This makes sense, because the main advocate of storygames had a burning hatred for roleplaying and RPG's, and he also created the GNS.

But, since his personal influence has waned, Storygames and GNS have split a bit and are (as of 2013) not congruent.

GNS theory is what wrecks RPG's, when adopted. Following it creates horrible RPG's, even if those RPG's have few or no Story-game elements.

I proffer 4e as an example. It's a wargame heavy RPG, with disassociated mechanics common to wargames or boardgames, precisely because GNS theory said it'd be incredibly successful in the marketplace. It wasn't.

The current war is presented as a fight-to-the-death between RPG's and Storygames. This is a mistake, I think. Truth in labeling would solve most of the problems people see with Storygames.

What must die, what needs to be warred against, is the GNS. It is an actual, real threat to RPG's and Storygames. People who follow its tenets produce horrible examples of both.

Eradicate GNS. Detente with Storygamers. Truth in labeling.

That's what I'd like to see.

Quote from: CRKrueger;621580Emperor Norton - What actually happened?  The bad guy missed, but because the GM rolled a 1, that creates an opening, so you can spend a Plot Point to explain and describe what that actually means, that when the bad guy missed, he missed so badly, it exposed a weakness that you can use as a bonus die via a tech resource.  To me, this is the very definition of narrative gaming, the mechanics are allowing you to narrate what happened, in other words, you are spending the point to choose what's occurring and your character has absolutely no way to make that happen, it's completely metagame.  That's why if you use MHR as written, it's a highly Narrative RPG that could also be called a Storygame.  The only thing that might keep it in RPG territory is that the core resolution mechanics could be used without Plot Points or Doom Points (at least IIRC).

I guess spending the plot point is the [meta game] part of it, while getting to describe what this does is the [narrative] part.
I think the plot points are pretty well baked in. You could get rid of the narrative bit by saying "I spend the plot point" and having the GM describe the result, but stripping that away still leaves the player making decisions based on abstract mechanics, rather than the scene in front of them.

From what I recall, even stuff that your character could reasonably do in character is subject to metagame controls. For instance "I pick up an object to use as an improvised club" is something you can imagine a character doing quite easily, but that counts in game terms as creating a Resource and so will cost a plot point. A different sort of nastiness to narrative control, in that instead of just "not being your guy" for a bit, there's a bizarre incentive scheme which randomly favours or hinders your character's decisions.

For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!

FUCK

Quote from: Planet Algol;621604For the love of god, can you people please just put glechman on your ignore lists!

I have no problem with him, so I have no reason to do that.

Well in this way Bedrock Brendan can have a nice multi multi paragraph interview with Monte Cook and we can have a nice multi multi paragraph interview with gleichman and the universe can, I dunno, fuckin' balance out or something and the only price is our eyeballs.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;621605I have no problem with him, so I have no reason to do that.

Sorry, let me rephrase that.

Can you people that are getting in quote arguments with glechman PLEASE FUCKING IGNORE LIST HIM INSTEAD.

He's can beat your asses at chess... blindfolded; just accept his smug superiority.

Quote from: Planet Algol;621613Can you people that are getting in quote arguments with glechman PLEASE FUCKING IGNORE LIST HIM INSTEAD.

Already done.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;621597Truth in labeling would solve most of the problems people see with Storygames.

It would solve my problems with Storygames.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;621592@Benoist:

I think the shades of grey thing is really important honestly. I don't have a problem with categorizations of RPGs and Story Games, I just think that the idea that there are concrete lines that everyone is going to agree on is a thing.

I mean, when you look at something like Dogs in the Vineyard, I clearly see a Storygame. When I look at D&D (all flavors) I clearly see an RPG. Something like MHRP, I see falling onto the RPG side, but leaning towards storygame. Funny then that I see Leverage (which uses the same base system, but more narrative mechanics) as a storygame that leans towards RPG. With all the stuff in the middle though, I think that any hard line would be hard to place. And I could see the argument of MHRP being a storygame or Leverage being an RPG being a reasonable argument.

And I think that some people, not saying you, are attempting to put both a hard line AND putting a value judgment on it, which I think until that stops, people will continue to argue their game is one or the other, to avoid their game being called badwrongfun.

Personally, I don't give a shit if a game I like is a storygame and some people think storygames are the death of rpgs., I like Leverage, I think its really fun, but not everyone has the same level of "notgiveashit" that I do.

@CRKrueger

That is a fair assessment. And actually your categorization of Wargame vs RPG vs Storygame, and how games can lean different directions is perfectly in line with my way of thinking.

Like I would consider 4e D&D an RPG that leans Wargame.

Agreed these games all sit on that Wargame/Roleplaygame/Storygame axis and the problem comes when someone wants to impose definitive divsions that everyone else has to adhere to.