Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668710So who or what was Gygax yelling at in those early days when he said critical hits where offensive or that DMs who did such things were unethical and should be held in contempt?

This is not a "storygamer" thing.

The critical hits/houseruling thing (Dragon #16, Benoist posted it up at one point but the links to the large images aren't working anymore) was mainly directed at Arduin, I think.
That was Gary telling people not to buy sourcebooks from the competitors that weren't TSR-approved, basically.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668707I honestly don't know. I'd certainly never run a game like that.
If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.

Its probably one of the reasons why storygames are (in)famous for not being playable or used for long campaigns.  That, and that the games are really being played to mark how trendsetting one is. And of course, that they're not that fun.

Hmm, where have I seen this line of argument before? Oh yes

Quote from: Ron EdwardsMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much.

The circle is complete.

There are a few differences. First, I'm not saying they don't enjoy it. They do, just not for the same reasons an RPG gamer enjoys RPGs; they enjoy storygames because of how it makes them feel about themselves (that they're "intellectuals" doing something "deep", "trendsetters", etc.), and possibly due to the whole creating-a-story thing.  

Second, there are far less people playing Storygames than RPGs. Edwards was claiming that RPG gamers, due to ignorance, are engaged in the millions in a hobby they don't actually enjoy.
I'm saying there's a few hundred to a couple-of-thousand storygamers out there, who mostly know why they're doing it.

RPGPundit

All I know is that I play traditional RPGs and I play storygames. I find that they are different flavours of the same core experience. I enjoy both equally. I don't play storygames to feel good about myself for being an intellectual (seriously?) or too look cool (again, seriously?). I play them because they're fun.

Oh and I'm not sure what the threshold for a long campaign is, but my current Other Worlds campaign has now gone on for something like 20, 25 sessions and we're still having a lot of fun. And we've played it for three campaigns before, each lasting about 15 sessions. These aren't long campaigns perhaps, but they're not exactly short ones either.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668703As a general custom? Sure. But its understood that the GM has the authority to do so.

In roleplaying games, that is. One of the big differences in storygames is that the latter seek to completely control the GM, limiting his activity as much as possible and making him beholden to both rules and players; with people like Luke Crane and Vince Baker having gone on record as to how they feel that GMs are dangerous, and likewise that they peskily ruin the "vision" of the sage "intellectual" game designer, and therefore cannot be trusted.

So in Storygames, like Dungeon World, both the rule and the custom is that the GM is NOT permitted to ignore dice results or the rules.

This is where we disagree.  Before explaining, let me make it clear that there are some games where the "GM" is restricted in order for the game to operate and I agree that this suggests that a game is no longer an RPG, such as PTA. It's not necessarily a story-game, as the restriction can also be used to create tactical gameplay, such as Burning Empires.

In regard to DW, it has already been demonstrated above that the GM moves are an exercise in making the GM's task explicit but don't actually reduce the GM's flexibility from that in an RPG in practice.

It's also recognised in DW that the GM can make custom moves, at his discretion, just like a GM in an RPG making a ruling.

This just leaves the 'player moves' which are for the most common activities in DW, such as combat and what would be skill use in an RPG. These rules provide well understood concrete results for dice rolls, such attacking. The GM should follow these results, but there is nothing that would destroy or unbalance the game play of DW if the GM exercised their discretion to ignore these well established rules. This would not be the case in PTA or Burning Empires (or a wargame or board game).

If the GM did so, then the only issues that arise are the same that would arise in an RPG i.e. a potential breach of player trust through a lack of impartiality. These issues are commonly unsaid and unaddressed, but they are well known and understood.

Equally, if a GM ignored one of these rules for good reason, then the group will be just fine with it and, as said, the game doesn't break or become unbalanced. If anything DW increases the GM's flexibility and power of discretion to make such blatant ignoring of the rules less likely. Rather than hard results from rolls, the results include a much higher dose of GM discretion.

In my opinion, this is not an attempt to create a story-game by limiting GM control to give players greater narrative control. It's an attempt to make the RPGing experience more explicit and to address what is a common RPG issue over things like "should a GM ignore dice results" that have been argued endlessly since the inception of RPGs, including on this forum.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668707I honestly don't know. I'd certainly never run a game like that.
If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.

Its probably one of the reasons why storygames are (in)famous for not being playable or used for long campaigns.  That, and that the games are really being played to mark how trendsetting one is. And of course, that they're not that fun.

In any event, this exchange started when you said that storygames were written to force the GM into a particular playstyle, and that storygames prevented those GMs from doing what they wanted to do.

None of the reasons you provide support that position. In fact they suggest that the GMs are actively embracing this kind of play, albeit for reasons of pretentiousness or self-delusion. They're not being FORCED to do anything.

Quote from: soviet;668738In any event, this exchange started when you said that storygames were written to force the GM into a particular playstyle, and that storygames prevented those GMs from doing what they wanted to do.

None of the reasons you provide support that position. In fact they suggest that the GMs are actively embracing this kind of play, albeit for reasons of pretentiousness or self-delusion. They're not being FORCED to do anything.

FWIW, I play and run them because I enjoy them.

Quote from: soviet;668735Oh and I'm not sure what the threshold for a long campaign is, but my current Other Worlds campaign has now gone on for something like 20, 25 sessions and we're still having a lot of fun. And we've played it for three campaigns before, each lasting about 15 sessions. These aren't long campaigns perhaps, but they're not exactly short ones either.

By RPG standards that would be decent though by no means exceptional.
By Storygame standards they'd be something like 10 to 20 times the typical number of sessions played, from what I've seen.

Storygames threads and forums are full of storygamers admitting that their games are for 1 or 2 sessions, with anything else being a significant exception to that trend.   Some even take pride in this as though that's better than playing the same RPG for years at a time.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is not more typical of Storygames than your own experience with Other Worlds?

RPGPundit

Our BW game ran for a year or so, and our last FATE game ran for 6 sessions or so, but I admit to being guilty of playing short games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;668742Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is not more typical of Storygames than your own experience with Other Worlds?

No I accept that it is more typical of storygames than traditional RPGs. But you're trying to present it as a defining characteristic of storygames and I don't think that's the case. Dogs, Sorcerer, and Burning Wheel are all meant to be played as campaigns lasting for several sessions, with BW I think intended for campaign lengths at least as long as I've been using Other Worlds for.

I also want to note that storygames.com does not represent 'storygamers' as a whole. The way they play and think is not the way I play and think, and I don't imagine that I am exactly alone in this regard.

Quote from: soviet;668738In any event, this exchange started when you said that storygames were written to force the GM into a particular playstyle, and that storygames prevented those GMs from doing what they wanted to do.

None of the reasons you provide support that position. In fact they suggest that the GMs are actively embracing this kind of play, albeit for reasons of pretentiousness or self-delusion. They're not being FORCED to do anything.

Storygames may not prevent "storygame gms" from doing what they accept to be their role. What I'm saying is that they very clearly do prevent GMs of actual RPGs from being able to assume their proper power and responsibilities as per regular RPG standards.   In your example above, the GM might be able to make "custom moves" in DW but he clearly can't just make a ruling, he's still beholden to the rules themselves; rules written by people who hate GMs and have dedicated an entire hobby (and made an effort to subvert another) just to disempowering them.

At the end of the day, there are only two possibilities: either you know that Dungeon World is a storygame by the landmark standards, and you're just full of shit; or you really truly honestly believe that its an RPG that has been erroneously mislabeled as a storygame because I haven't looked at it in sufficient depth and/or have received false reports about it, and that if I were just to look at the rules with an open mind, I would actually have to conceded that it is an RPG at least, if not an OSR game as some of its proponents try to claim (though again, its authors have stated it isn't, though they certainly don't seem too upset by fans mislabeling it as such for marketing purposes).

If its the former, then this is all a rhetorical game on your part, and serves no purpose.

If its really the latter, then you and the others making these claims should put your money where your mouth is; send me a copy of dungeon world to review.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;668714Even the devil can quote Gygax. He said a lot of things, and none of the because he thought Storygaming was the model to follow.

No, he thought his way was the only model to follow. Who does that remind you of...As I said, it's not unique to 'storygamers'.

Quote from: soviet;668704Why then do these GMs decide to run these games? Are they held prisoner by their groups or forced into it by peer pressure? Do they desperately want to fudge dice results if only their players/captors/designer-tyrants would let them?

More likely they are new to gaming, unconfident in their ability to improvise, and find the role of GM daunting so really appreciate rules and guidance.

At least that seems more likely to me than vengeonce-filled anti-rpg terrorists.

"The secret we should never let gamemasters know is that they don't need rules"
- Gygax

Yes, I suppose it is also possible they might be doing it because they're gullible newbies being tricked into doing it wrong. That is, after all, one of the Forge Swine's goals. Its why they keep trying to market themselves as RPGs, and as specific types of RPGs they aren't even similar to, in order to trick people, especially newbies, into playing their games instead of Regular RPGs.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: TristramEvans;668873"The secret we should never let gamemasters know is that they don't need rules"
- Gygax

Its funny, because Gygax of course meant this as a liberating concept; the Forge Swine on the other hand seem to take this as a literal statement, that GMs should be as oppressed and strictly controlled as possible or else they might actually end up doing their job and running the world, and then where would the Glorious Player's Revolution be?!

RPGPundit