Quote from: Motorskills;626457I think the main flaw with your argument Pundit are those games that have a foot in both camps (even if they haven't been written yet .

Something like chess-boxing is a deliberate attempt to weld two seemingly-incompatible hobbies together, and they really had to contort the fabric of reality to mesh them together as they did. (Looks hella fun though!

But a storygame with OSTTRPG elements is much easier to imagine, as would an OSTTRPG that featured storygame chapters.

But I think more importantly, the need to create such a firm division between the two hobbies (if you will) only serves to inhibit innovation IMO.



TLDR - the walls are thin, perhaps illusory, and are potentially damaging to the wider gaming hobby.

Take a look at the link in my sig. The storygame one, not Rob Zombie, although I recommend a daily dose of that as well for a healthy constitution and a robust complexion.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;626278and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.

Around here, "story game" is typically defined as a game with significant mechanics that call for players other than the single GM to do out-of-character narration.  On the Story Games forum, there currently tends to be a broader definition of "story game" that includes Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: The Masquerade, or other RPGs that talk about story and/or genre emulation.  

Claiming it is a separate hobby is completely off, though, in my opinion.  

(1) A large fraction of traditional RPG players regularly drop out of character, even for in-game decisions. (i.e. "OK, we've got an hour left before Jens has to catch his train.  What should we do?").  

(2) There is a difference between dropping out of character by preference as opposed to dropping out of character based on the rules.  However, it seems a stretch to say that one defines a completely different hobby than the other.  

(3) There is a smooth spectrum of games with fewer and more meta-game mechanics, and there is a smooth and overlapping distribution of players among these systems.  

(4) Arguing for separateness is pointless to reducing the influence, because even if something is accepted as a different hobby, it doesn't prevent there being cross-over and cross-influence.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;626278and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.

I can, I've done so hundreds of times at this point, and I don't feel any need to humor a known troll who knows this as well.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Traveller;626464Take a look at the link in my sig. The storygame one, not Rob Zombie, although I recommend a daily dose of that as well for a healthy constitution and a robust complexion.

Well I was there, you know.


Just because (if) Ron Edwards was wrong, and offensive with it*, doesn't autmatically make the people he was slamming correct. So much blood was spilled over those GNS fights people are entrenched to the point of blinkeredness.

*because that never happens around here, eh?


I mean, just look at the rest of that thread you linked, you've got well-established RPGsite posters who can't even agree on differential definitions. The simplest explanation is that there isn't one, or at least if you could find one there would likely need to be so many exceptions as to make the rule meaningless.


It's Pundit's board and he can chop up the sub-forums any way he likes, but it doesn't mean things are going to easily fall into his increasingly-arbitrary categories.



"The role of the traditional GM is corrosive to the hobby."
No it isn't. It's a fantastic tool for pre-creating a defined storypath and for establishing an us-versus-them dynamic.
But it's just a tool. There are other tools for creating the same things, and I would argue you don't need either of those outcomes to have a great shared RPG experience.
Refusal to accept that arguably is corrosive to the hobby.

I don't need a "storygame" to achieve those things either. But they sit side-by-side with my OSTTRPGs on my bookshelf.

Quote from: Motorskills;626506Well I was there, you know.

I bet.

Quote from: Motorskills;626506Just because (if) Ron Edwards was wrong, and offensive with it*, doesn't autmatically make the people he was slamming correct. So much blood was spilled over those GNS fights people are entrenched to the point of blinkeredness.

No, you've just completely ignored the link in my sig and the facts therein.

Quote from: Motorskills;626506*because that never happens around here, eh?

I mean, just look at the rest of that thread you linked, you've got well-established RPGsite posters who can't even agree on differential definitions. The simplest explanation is that there isn't one, or at least if you could find one there would likely need to be so many exceptions as to make the rule meaningless.

I find it interesting that you are knowledgeable on the particulars of my posting history. In contrast I have no idea about yours and have no desire to find out more.

Quote from: Motorskills;626506It's Pundit's board and he can chop up the sub-forums any way he likes, but it doesn't mean things are going to easily fall into his increasingly-arbitrary categories.

What does this even mean? You're crying about how shared narrative games get shunted to 'other games'? Why? Nobody is stopping you from talking about them. There is no censorship here, or at least far, far less than almost any other board I've used. In fact the tolerance in these parts has come close upon occasion to disrupting the entire site, a testament to the dedication people have to a healthy environment for discourse. You'll never get banned for having a different opinion here.

Only someone not interested in genuine honest debate could have a problem with that.

Quote from: Motorskills;626506"The role of the traditional GM is corrosive to the hobby."
No it isn't. It's a fantastic tool for pre-creating a defined storypath and for establishing an us-versus-them dynamic.
But it's just a tool. There are other tools for creating the same things, and I would argue you don't need either of those outcomes to have a great shared RPG experience.
Refusal to accept that arguably is corrosive to the hobby.

You completely misunderstand the role of a GM. Luckily enough I have an entire thread dedicated to just that subject on the front page. Please feel free to peruse that chapter of my posts as well.

Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't agree with your definition of an RPG. If you're not playing from a character's perspective, you're not roleplaying IMO.

I agree (and also didn't define RPGs as such in the first place). But all RPGs have a point where they must be played from the player's PoV.

Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't care if you're not confident or emotionally secure. I just want you to play a character, from that character's POV. I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but my experience informs me that these games are designed with a heaping helping of meta game involvement. That HAS to impact game play regardless of a player's emotional maturity. After playing several of these games, I believe that factor is more profound than a player's emotional security.

On the one hand system does matter. On the other, games like Fiasco can be played either way, and the choice is largely dependent on how comfortable/confident the person doing it is, because none of the mechanics encourage one way or the other when in a scene.

It's a spectrum, which is why I think the RPG/Storygame absolutes are useless.

Quote from: trechriron;625215My experience with storygames, is they have mechanics that encourage the "director's" stance. I appreciate you feel it has nothing to do with it, but my experience informs me differently.

And again I agree. The point is that there's a spectrum, and this Director stance can be a greater or lesser part of play.

Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't want to psychoanalyze people's emotional security at my table. I just want to play and have fun.

Thing is that this is a foundational skill for GMs, and not a bad one to have as a player. Because often someone doesn't know when they're stepping on someone else's fun. Yes, adults should be able to state when there's a problem and discuss, but it's surprising how often that doesn't happen, even among people who know each other well.

Quote from: The Traveller;626510I find it interesting that you are knowledgeable on the particulars of my posting history. In contrast I have no idea about yours and have no desire to find out more.

Since you're quoting me (as well as Warpig) in the link in your sig, you're either lying or too stupid to converse with.

Quote from: Motorskills;626566Since you're quoting me (as well as Warpig) in the link in your sig, you're either lying or too stupid to converse with.

That was of course a reference to the goonbaiting of soviet that you handily managed to pluck out of the many posts and threads I have made. An episode which incidentally still provides me with much merriment. As far as your quote in the link, that would be more in the nature of watching someone march determinedly straight off a cliff.

It's not entirely surprising that you've no response to the majority of my comment however, electing instead to stoop to personal abuse.

Quote from: The Traveller;626570That was of course a reference to the goonbaiting of soviet that you handily managed to pluck out of the many posts and threads I have made. An episode which incidentally still provides me with much merriment. As far as your quote in the link, that would be more in the nature of watching someone march determinedly straight off a cliff.

It's not entirely surprising that you've no response to the majority of my comment however, electing instead to stoop to personal abuse.

I was (and still am) prepared to respond, but you indicated that you weren't interested in what I had to say......

Quote from: jhkim;626477Around here, "story game" is typically defined as a game with significant mechanics that call for players other than the single GM to do out-of-character narration.

Where "narration" means players editing the game world, as if they were a designer or GM.

Simultaneously being (by way of analogy) player and GM, along with a few other people doing the same thing, is a very different dynamic than roleplaying a character.

In RPG's, you are playing pretend, limited by the constraints of the world (as presented by the GM). In narrative games, you are yourself, authoring the fictional world as if you were GM. (Simming, in other words.)

Those are not the same thing. I truly do not know why narrativists cannot grasp that, even theoretically. YOU may think they're identical, but I do not, and you don't seem to be able to understand why.

Proof: instead of addressing the real reasons, you give 4 arguments that completely miss-state roleplayers' objections.

Let's deal with them:

Quote from: jhkim;626477On the Story Games forum, there currently tends to be a broader definition of "story game" that includes Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: The Masquerade, or other RPGs that talk about story and/or genre emulation.

This is more proof that narrativists simply do not understand roleplayers. (Which tends to support Pundit's position.)

Narrative mechanics have nothing to do with genre emulation. You can roleplay a spy story or high fantasy or the Cthulhu mythos, or you can sim in those genres. Both are possible, and have nothing to do with genre.

Quote from: jhkim;626477A large fraction of traditional RPG players regularly drop out of character, even for in-game decisions.

Which has nothing to do with them suddenly becoming a co-GM or a game designer.
   

Quote from: jhkim;626477There is a difference between dropping out of character by preference as opposed to dropping out of character based on the rules.

Neither of which have anything to do with the difference between roleplaying mechanics and narrative mechanics.

Quote from: jhkim;626477There is a smooth spectrum of games with fewer and more meta-game mechanics

As I've said before, repeatedly, not all metagame mechanics are narrative in nature, and RPG's can have metagame mechanics.

Quote from: jhkim;626477Arguing for separateness is pointless to reducing the influence, because even if something is accepted as a different hobby, it doesn't prevent there being cross-over and cross-influence.

Yet if we could somehow explain to you narrativists why narrative control for players is disruptive for our games, maybe you could at last see the distinction and stop trying to claim that RPG's like Torg (a lot of metagame mechanics) and CoC are storygames (a very silly claim) and storygames are RPG's.

Stop selling us chocolate cake and claiming it's a Twinkie. Both may be baked desserts, but they are not wholly identical.

("What if there were a chocolate Twinkie? Doesn't that prove that Twinkies and chocolate cakes are the same?" No.)

Double post

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;626599Yet if we could somehow explain to you narrativists why narrative control for players is disruptive for our games, maybe you could at last see the distinction and stop trying to claim that RPG's like Torg (a lot of metagame mechanics) and CoC are storygames (a very silly claim) and storygames are RPG's.

Stop selling us chocolate cake and claiming it's a Twinkie. Both may be baked desserts, but they are not wholly identical.

OK, I'm getting pretty short-tempered, but I'll try to explain this again.  

Just because I say "World of Warcraft is an RPG" and I also say that "Dungeons & Dragons is an RPG" does not mean that I think the WoW and D&D are identical.  The current case is that I say, "World of Warcraft is an RPG" - and you're attacking me - saying that I am a complete moron trying to convince you that World of Warcraft is played around a table with a game-master and character sheets.  That is not true.  When I say that World of Warcraft is an RPG, I mean that it is a different kind of RPG from D&D.  

Likewise, when I say "Call of Cthulhu" is a story game - that does not mean that I think that Call of Cthulhu is identical in all ways to Apocalypse World.  It means that I think the term "story game" is wide enough to encompass them both.  From the Story Games website FAQ:

QuoteWhat is a Story Game?

Story Games... is the name of this website/forum, dedicated to the discussion of playing Role-Playing Games.

A Story Game... is another word for A Role-Playing Game. Defined as "A game where you play a role". This covers a lot, A LOT, of ground.

Most of the games we discuss are tabletop roleplaying games, much more than live action roleplaying, or computer/console gaming (not the focus of the site).

While all role-playing games are kosher to talk about here at Story Games, you'll probably see a lot of discussion focused towards smaller press games, or "dirty hippie games", like roleplaying games that focus more on relationships, or story-building, or on "our story" over "my character".

You will note that the FAQ specifically says that there *is* a distinction between "dirty hippy games" and some other RPGs.  However, the term "story games" is broad enough to cover them both.  

Six years ago as the website was starting up, this FAQ was different.  The author and site maintainer Andy defined "story games" as only what he calls "dirty hippy games".  However, after a number of arguments trying to define what was or wasn't a "story game", we found that the arguments were pointless for exactly the reasons I said.  We accept that there are differences, but we don't try to draw a line in the sand between two sides because it is pointless.

I really wish we would just get back to talking about games. This argument is getting old as fuck and is popping up on multiple threads. At this point does anyone seriously not know where other posters stand on this issue?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;626730This argument is getting old as fuck and is popping up on multiple threads.

I happen to agree, which is why I dropped out a few days ago. After this post, I think I'm going to drop out again.

Quote from: jhkim;626612OK, I'm getting pretty short-tempered,

I'm genuinely sorry about that. I'm trying to phrase things so they aren't antagonistic. In fact, several times I simply haven't made a point, because I can't think of a non-offensive way to say something. I don't know what to do about it.

I'm not angry at you, I don't think you're a bad man, I don't think you're trying to destroy RPG's. I just disagree with you.

You seem like a sincere, intelligent, educated, and intellectually honest guy. FWIW.

Quote from: jhkim;626612When I say that World of Warcraft is an RPG, I mean that it is a different kind of RPG from D&D.

Your position is that making a distinction between storygames and RPG's is meaningless.

My point is that any definition which is meant to describe TTRPG's, but which also includes Fiasco, 3.0, and WoW is equally meaningless.

CRPG's are a different medium entirely. They have virtually nothing in common with TTRPG's, save for levels, XP, and powers. I know, I've played a lot of them, especially on consoles.

The distinction, in that case, is important. It says a lot about the games in question.

Quote from: jhkim;626612Likewise, when I say "Call of Cthulhu" is a story game - that does not mean that I think that Call of Cthulhu is identical in all ways to Apocalypse World.  It means that I think the term "story game" is wide enough to encompass them both.

Then it's a meaningless definition, a definition that focuses on ephemeral characteristics and ignores the central, critical facet: the difference between players-as-game-designers and players-as-players. (The difference between simming and roleplaying.)

Quote from: jhkim;626612However, after a number of arguments trying to define what was or wasn't a "story game", we found that the arguments were pointless for exactly the reasons I said.

This is one of those things I shouldn't say, because I know it will make you angry. My apologies, but I'm going to say it anyway:

Storygamers have, in thread after thread, rebelled against the very notion of definitions in this area, proffered vague and overly-broad definitions of "telling a story", and shown little recognition of the crucial difference between roleplaying and simming.

That a large group of such people can't craft an exact, 100% perfect definition of where TTRPG's and storygames differ doesn't surprise. Judging by their statements, most don't want such a definition, most think it's unnecessary, in fact most don't think there is any difference at all between the two, so such a definition is (to them) utterly impossible.

Of course they didn't come up with one, because it's anathema to them. It's like asking Dracula to sunbathe. He'll never try it, and if he did he'd never get a tan.

For my part, I stick with the definitions of a narrative mechanic I offerred in one of the other threads, and the definition of narrative RPG's I offerred there as well. It isn't perfect, but it works well enough.

EDIT: I'm not saying this contemptuously. I'm a bad person to, for example, define the exact differences between OD&D, B/X, BECMI, and RC. It requires knowledge I do not have, and don't really care to acquire. I'd be bad at defining anything sports-related, chess-related, Bieber-related, or WoW-related.

Want to talk about the minutia of Torg? I'm one of the two or three best people in the world for that. (Not a lie.) But that other stuff is outside my wheelhouse. And, based solely on the sincere statements made by storygamers over the past month or so, creating such a definition is outside their wheelhouse.

(Right. That's it. Anyone else really interested in my opinion — not that there is anyone — can take it to PM.)

Quote from: jhkim;626612From the Story Games website FAQ:

That definition is useless. All he's trying to claim there is that ALL RPGs are actually "Storygames".  that means that either RPG or Storygame would be an utterly useless term.  

If "Storygame" didn't mean something DIFFERENT from RPG, why use it in the first place? Even if it was because you thought it was a better term for the thing in question, that's still claiming a difference, its still suggesting there's something fundamentally different you want to REPLACE with your new terminology.

RPGPundit