Quote from: jhkim;669368Let me try this again.  Benoist claimed - in short - that Dungeon World was a story game because play was about story

No, it is not what I claimed, and you are building a strawman, like any person with eyes can check out reading my posts. I don't care about engaging people trying to twist what I'm saying and making dishonest arguments. I won't waste any more time repeating what I already said.

Quote from: Skywalker;669369WFRP's Fate Points are an OOC mechanic that has little to do with genre.

A setting-based mechanic that only is invoked to prevent character death isn't even really a decision.  This is always been one of those "If that's the best you got, you got nothin" points.

Quote from: SkywalkerPrince Valiant's Storyteller Certificates aren't genre based.

True, but we were talking about RPGs, right.  Valiant is labeled a Storytelling Game by its own author and is by your own earlier definition a Storygame.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669375True, but we were talking about RPGs, right.  Valiant is labeled a Storytelling Game by its own author and is by your own earlier definition a Storygame.

Ha! To your credit, that is worth dissecting some more, but TBH I am rusty on my PV and would need to go back over my copy of it to do so.

FWIW from memory, Storyteller Certificates only appeared in the advance version of the game and were given as a reward either for GMing (if round robin GMing was used) or by the GM to a player for good play. The effects of the Certificate were also limited in nature. As such, I think the concept lacks the OOC competition element over story to be a story-game IMO. But your point is well made.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669375True, but we were talking about RPGs, right.  Valiant is labeled a Storytelling Game by its own author and is by your own earlier definition a Storygame.

I definitely wouldn't call Prince Valiant a Story game. Its labelled a 'story telling game' in the same way as WoD, which probably got the term there, as white wolf's house system was basically PV's with dice pools instead of coins. But GM certificates,  an optional rule at the back of the book intended for when playing the game with younger children, aside, PV is an RPG through-and-through. No limits on or redustribution of the G M's power, no narrative-based mechanics, and a mighty fine presentation as well with the single best example of play in any RPG core rulebook,  ever.

Quote from: Benoist;669281I agree that since we're fundamentally speaking of a spectrum people will identify different components of games to categorize them. Personally, I consider the primary purpose of the game to be a critical component helping me to understand what the game is designed to achieve.

A game like O/AD&D is specifically designed in order to emulate a functioning campaign milieu which then the players' characters will explore.
...
Dungeon World has a purpose to build a collaborative narrative. There is no actual world that is being emulated at all, its components only existing as narrative devices to serve the primary purpose of the game: to tell an entertaining story, "find out what happens next", to use the jargon of the game.

Quote from: jhkim;669368Let me try this again.  Benoist claimed - in short - that Dungeon World was a story game because play was about story, and not about world.  I disagreed, because many traditional RPGs are (1) explicitly state that their purpose is to create story; (2) have modules that are organized around story; (3) have many GMs and players who care about story in actual practice.  

In short, playing for story is traditional.  Specific mechanics for story may or may not be traditional, but simply having a focus on story is not a sign of a non-traditional RPG.

Quote from: Benoist;669371No, it is not what I claimed, and you are building a strawman, like any person with eyes can check out reading my posts. I don't care about engaging people trying to twist what I'm saying and making dishonest arguments. I won't waste any more time repeating what I already said.

I'm including your actual words above.  If you don't want to explain yourself, that's up to you.  I am not intentionally misrepresenting you, however.  

My statement is this:  the primary purpose of many traditional RPGs like Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, Over the Edge, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ghostbusters, and many others is explicitly to create an entertaining story - as stated both by the game authors and by many game participants.  

Therefore, there is no clear difference in primary purpose of play between these and Dungeon World.  There are differences in mechanical implementations, but not in primary purpose.  

It is possible for people to play any of these games while ignoring the game text and not playing for story.  However, that is not the game as written.

Quote from: jhkim;669380My statement is this:  the primary purpose of many traditional RPGs like Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, Over the Edge, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ghostbusters, and many others is explicitly to create an entertaining story - as stated both by the game authors and by many game participants.  

Therefore, there is no clear difference in primary purpose of play between these and Dungeon World.  There are differences in mechanical implementations, but not in primary purpose.  

It is possible for people to play any of these games while ignoring the game text and not playing for story.  However, that is not the game as written.

Its possible to play from an IC perspective in a story - as long as the story is being constructed entirely by the dungeon master.
What's incompatible with IC is collaborative storytelling.
A mention of 'story' pre-00s is largely just an endorsement of railroading. I think an actual 'story game' is generally distinguishable by being designed for collaborative storytelling.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669388Its possible to play from an IC perspective in a story - as long as the story is being constructed entirely by the dungeon master.
What's incompatible with IC is collaborative storytelling.
A mention of 'story' pre-00s is largely just an endorsement of railroading. I think an actual 'story game' is generally distinguishable by being designed for collaborative storytelling.

Ah, yes - the idea that Ars Magica, Vampire, etc. wer entirely railroading before the Forge came along and saved things - because there is no way that a traditional GM could possibly listen to players or respond to their actions.  

In case you might have guess, I consider this utter nonsense.  Railroading was and is a common trap because it simplifies GM prep.  However, it was well known and debated long before the Forge came around.  I had long discussions with people interested in drama in the early nineties.  Moreover, it's not even particularly connected to story-oriented RPGs.  Some of the most railroaded modules are actually tournament modules intended for competitive play, and some railroading even flows from world logic when there is a mission with clear steps.  

Collaborative storytelling in traditional RPGs is based on a few simple principles:

1) The personalities, goals, and actions of the main characters are the key and center of every story.  

2) The players set up their personalities, goals, and actions.  

3) The GM responds to what the players give her by creating events and NPCs tailored to those.  

4) The players respond by how their characters grow and change.  

5) The GM changes plans based on what the players do.

In the 80s we used to call railroading GMs "Thatchers". This sometimes extended to modules, for example I knew alot of my friends into AD&D considered the Dragonlance modules 'Thatcher campaigns'.

Quote from: Skywalker;669352Cool. I am not sure where our disconnect is, as I pretty much agree with what you say. FWIW I wasn't attempting to categorise games as trying to recognise multiple influences on the arguments being made.

Fair enough.

Quote from: jhkim;669390Ah, yes - the idea that Ars Magica, Vampire, etc. wer entirely railroading before the Forge came along and saved things - because there is no way that a traditional GM could possibly listen to players or respond to their actions.  

In case you might have guess, I consider this utter nonsense.  Railroading was and is a common trap because it simplifies GM prep.  However, it was well known and debated long before the Forge came around.  I had long discussions with people interested in drama in the early nineties.  Moreover, it's not even particularly connected to story-oriented RPGs.  Some of the most railroaded modules are actually tournament modules intended for competitive play, and some railroading even flows from world logic when there is a mission with clear steps.  

Collaborative storytelling in traditional RPGs is based on a few simple principles:

1) The personalities, goals, and actions of the main characters are the key and center of every story.  

2) The players set up their personalities, goals, and actions.  

3) The GM responds to what the players give her by creating events and NPCs tailored to those.  

4) The players respond by how their characters grow and change.  

5) The GM changes plans based on what the players do.

I wouldn't quite have put it that way, given that I don't want the GM to listen to me or respond to my actions (other than impartially).
None of the things you listed here are necessarily in contradiction with being in-character. Mind you, none of these are not as I put it 'constructed entirely by the dungeon master' either,  even if we call them 'collaborative'.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669404I wouldn't quite have put it that way, given that I don't want the GM to listen to me or respond to my actions (other than impartially).

None of the things you listed here are necessarily in contradiction with being in-character. Mind you, none of these are not as I put it 'constructed entirely by the dungeon master' either,  even if we call them 'collaborative'.

Well, quite possibly you're not interested in the story side of play at all, which is fine.  The part I disagreed with was your claim that all story in RPGs was railroading until the Forge came along.  

I don't get your latter statement, though.  If I decide who my character is and what my character does (my #2 and #4) - how is that being constructed entirely by the game master?

Quote from: jhkim;669408Well, quite possibly you're not interested in the story side of play at all, which is fine.  The part I disagreed with was your claim that all story in RPGs was railroading until the Forge came along.  

I don't get your latter statement, though.  If I decide who my character is and what my character does (my #2 and #4) - how is that being constructed entirely by the game master?

lol. Sorry.
[/URL]

On the second part: there could be ideas from a player used, but they're only in subject to GM agreement so the world is his entirely. A PCs' background even is to an extent subject to GM veto, and is likely to have been influenced by the GM's world; the expression of it in the campaign is wholly up to the GM (e.g. NPCs from a characters background may or may not appear). I suppose likewise whether a character's decisions have any effect is ultimately up to the GM.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669271So what is it?  A Narrative RPG. A Hybrid RPG. It's really something new.  It's definitely not a traditional RPG by any definition that isn't deliberately misapplied.  It's totally Modern design, with the focus on seeing roleplaying as a way to interactively storytell.

It's what WW said they were doing, but provided no real mechanical support for.  It's interactive storytelling through roleplaying.

Ok, as you're someone here who's disagreeing with me and yet clearly isn't one of the Story Swine, I would be quite interested to hear your judgment on this (whereas others here I know would only spew propaganda or lies or rhetoric to try to win the argument), so tell me: ultimately, which of the two is more fundamentally important in DW: that above all it be able to create a story? Or that it effectively emulate an immersive living world?

Because from what you wrote above, it sounds like DW may have some other priorities besides the former, but it certainly does consider the former paramount; whereas from your description above that the latter's importance is utterly peripheral at best. Would that be an accurate assessment, in your opinion?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;669281Dungeon World has a purpose to build a collaborative narrative. There is no actual world that is being emulated at all, its components only existing as narrative devices to serve the primary purpose of the game: to tell an entertaining story, "find out what happens next", to use the jargon of the game. The dungeon for instance does not positively exist in an emulated world, since vast areas are purposefully left blank in order to serve the narrative first, to be able to fill in those blanks in the most entertaining and drama-oriented manner possible. The purpose of "Fronts" is contained in the name: to serve as fronts, as antagonists in the narrative being opposed against the protagonists and producing drama; and only matter to the game as such. These elements have a sole purpose to serve as decor, as color, as tools serving and being supplanted by the overriding needs of the narrative. Building a story/narrative together is the primary purpose of the game. Hence, not a role playing game, to me.

See, that's exactly what CRKreuger's post just above yours here was saying to me.  It sounds like however right he may be about DW being a game that "uses roleplaying (techniques) to interactively storytell", this total lack of interest in emulation makes it, at most, a firm Storygame with RPG components, as opposed to an RPG with some storygame components (the way FATE is).

RPGPundit

Quote from: soviet;669338Exactly. People aren't giving you free stuff because they are AFRAID OF THE TRUTH

So your theory is, seriously(?!), that all this is because I have an aching desire to own my own personal copy of Dungeon World?!

Really?

RPGPundit