Quote from: CRKrueger;569762Notice I said "creation of Story" (cap intended), not "telling a story".  If each character basically retells their own experience, without there being a "shared narration" where we can create and affect each other's stories, or a shared story then it's not really a Storygame.  If there's no way to resolve any conflict, no randomization element at all, no way to win, then it's hard to really call it a game at all.  It's one thing to not possess certain game elements, it's another to have none of the.

Well, it's implied (but maybe not stated in the game rules?) that you don't just arbitrarily contradict each other's narratives, but rather that diverging stories are a point of interest and drama. So yeah, there's no way to "win" - but again, see the dictionary definition for why that isn't necessary to something being a game. Same comment applies to randomization, conflict resolution. The game isn't concerned with those things.

QuoteBy the definition you are using, sex with rules is a game.

Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by sex with rules. It sounds like it could be a game, specifically a sex game. Indeed it could even be a roleplaying game. But you'd need to be a bit more specific if you want to reductio me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;569741:rotfl:

Welcome to the adult swim, rabalias, and may Gawd save you, if it is right that he should do so.

Thanks... *googles adult swim* *remains faintly bamboozled*

Quote from: rabalias;569782Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by sex with rules. It sounds like it could be a game, specifically a sex game. Indeed it could even be a roleplaying game. But you'd need to be a bit more specific if you want to reductio me.

"Structured entertainment for multiple participants."
More then one person.
Entertainment.
Structure.

Pretty wide definition of a "game".  If you're leaving out any form of task or conflict resolution or any means of determining success or narrative control, then it's hard to qualify as a game.

Under that definition, sex with predetermined rules is a game, so is battle-rapping.
More then one person.
Entertainment.
Structure.
It's not that that "game" doesn't have all of the usual defining elements of a game, it really has none.

BTW, the fake bafflement technique doesn't go over too well here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569792Under that definition, sex with predetermined rules is a game, so is battle-rapping.

Why should that come as a surprise?

Quote from: rabalias;569678Still, it seems rather arbitrary to say that a game which includes elements of what you call dissociated mechanics isn't a roleplaying game

(1) You claim that I wrote this in the original article. I didn't.

(2) I explicitly point out that I didn't write this in the original article; in fact, I wrote exactly the opposite.

(3) You repeat your claim that I wrote this.

I'm willing to continue discussing things with you, but only if you'll do me the courtesy of demonstrating that you are actually capable of reading what I write and responding to it.

For example...

QuoteWell, thanks for your view. For myself I reckon as per my response to CRKrueger above it is a game,

Did you somehow miss the part where I said it was a game?

It is simply neither a roleplaying game (which would have mechanics which require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) nor a storytelling game (which would have mechanics for determining which player possesses narrative control).

What you have here probably qualifies as an improv game. Check out the work of Viola Spolin.

Quote from: soulbro;569765Justin, a question:  how many dissociated mechanics does it take to make a game a storytelling game instead of an RPG?

I think trying to think of this in some sort of quantitative terms is misleading at best. It's just a different form of purity test.

QuoteApocalypse World[/URL] as being a role-playing game, despite the fact that it has a couple of dissociated mechanics (in particular, the GM can ask the player to choose from a list of broad outcomes based on the player's dice results).

We were just discussing mechanics like this in another thread here on RPGSite. Most of the "choose which outcomes you're pursuing" mechanics in AW aren't dissociated.

QuoteMore on-topic, this is why I'm personally unsure of how useful the distinction is:  how does one know where to draw the line?

One easy example is the radical difference in how you prep material for an STG compared to how you prep material for an RPG. And, IME, this is true for every skill involved in playing the games: Narrative control decisions are just fundamentally different from roleplaying decisions.

Drawing the kind of purity-based hard line you're pursuing here simply is not necessary for the distinction to (a) exist or (b) be useful.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;569815Why should that come as a surprise?

Point taken.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569792"Structured entertainment for multiple participants."
More then one person.
Entertainment.
Structure.

Pretty wide definition of a "game".

And yet wider than the dictionary definition I posted above.

QuoteBTW, the fake bafflement technique doesn't go over too well here.

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to. I can assure you there's been no "fake" bafflement on my part. If you're referring to the adult swim reference, you should be aware I'm not from the US so certain references get lost on me. If not... well I'm genuinely not sure what you mean.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569836(1) You claim that I wrote this in the original article. I didn't.

I evidently have misunderstood the point of your article. I guess I got confused by the fact that it is titled "roleplaying games vs. story games" and was cited in response to my original point, which was saying that story games are a form of roleplaying game. It appears I have mistaken you for countering that statement.

QuoteI'm willing to continue discussing things with you, but only if you'll do me the courtesy of demonstrating that you are actually capable of reading what I write and responding to it.

Believe it or not, I read it from start to finish, but haven't been going back and cross-referencing everything I said. I don't usually treat my casual discussions on the internet like a debating contest... sorry about that. I guess this means we can't continue to discuss.

QuoteDid you somehow miss the part where I said it was a game?

It is simply neither a roleplaying game (which would have mechanics which require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) nor a storytelling game (which would have mechanics for determining which player possesses narrative control).

What you have here probably qualifies as an improv game. Check out the work of Viola Spolin.

I was simply pointing out that as (a) a game in which (b) roleplaying happens and (c) stories are told, it seems an odd claim that it is neither a story game nor a roleplaying game.

I tend to agree it could also be categorised as an improv game; thanks for the rec, I may just check it out.

Words don't have "inherent meaning" (take that Aristotle). Definitions live in a context, and when context changes so does the meaning in use for the word being used. Each of the definitions quoted from the dictionary requires a different context to become the "meaning in use".

In Game Design (especially Roleplaying Game Design) it can be important to limit ourselves to specific definitions (to avoid ambiguity with the "general sense" of a word). Scientific disciplines do a similar thing with terms like "energy", etc.

Your Improv-play-system fails the "Game Test" because while the outcome is Uncertain, it's not ultimately Quantifiable. It totally counts as "Play" tho (and there is an important distinction). It's kind-of light on the "Strategies" angle, too (no goals, risks, or rewards are tied to your mechanics).

Quote from: Telarus;556300A Game is a period of structured play (play ~ an activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose). Let us differentiate Game from other forms of Play (Toys, "Pretend", etc).

Games have:

• Agents ~ a list of players and/or their symbolic representations.
• Strategies ~ moves or series of moves governed by rules, that each player may make and the associated goals, risks and rewards.
• Uncertainty ~ the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable but ultimately quantifiable (if we could predict it 100% of the time in advance, why go through the ritual of acting it out, right?).
  

Lacking multiple agents, we have Playthings. Playthings with goals (puzzles, etc) are Challenges. Playthings without goals are Toys. Play with multiple agents but lacking one of the other two aspects also fall outside of Game territory (say a theatrical Play with a script/"goal" but little-to-no uncertainty, or simple "let's pretend" Play with no preestablished goals and plenty of uncertainty).

Now that we have defined Game-space, I would say that:

Roleplaying Games are games where one of the Players (usually labeled the "Game Master" or "Dungeon Master") is given authority to interpret the rules as well as advance the Narrative of Events by describing situations and outcomes and choosing strategies for all NPC Agents (Non-Player Characters). The other Players control an Agent (the "Player Character") and choose their strategies by associating themselves with the in-game representation presented by the GM's fictional narrative and considering the PC's the role in the story, character goals, and resources and game mechanics available to that PC. The usual Uncertainty lies in if the PCs as a group will succeed in the Goal for the current Session of Play (stated or unstated, GM chosen or collaborated upon), while the GM presents opposition without being emotionally invested in the PC's failure. Uncertainty can also lie in the method used to resolve in-game activities by characters, usually by rolling one or more dice and consulting the game's rules.

To get the thread back on topic, I have successfully ran a story game: The Mountain Witch, a game about a group of ronin samurai hired to climb Mt. Fuji and kill the sorcerer who lives on the peak.

I was clear with the group that this wasn't a "game like D&D" and that it involved trading Narrative Control (in fact, the Dark Secret mechanic allows any player to introduce new elements to the story as long as it relates to their dark secret... I.E Players get to "lay pipe" or provide exposition, in script writing terms). Then the GM gets to use that new material to challenge the group.

It's a totally different experience than D&D/Earthdawn/etc, primarily because of the mechanic-focus on who wins narrative control.

One of the players had to leave early the first session (I ran it in two sessions). I (along with some Dark Secret play from the other players) totally killed his character. This isn't that big a deal in The Mountain Witch. Dead characters can still aid or betray others, can still use mechanical resources, etc. The player wasn't used to this, and having left early didn't get to see how it played out. He was kind-of disturbed by what happened to his character, once the "story" of the game was told to him later (my fault, really for not explaining _how_ different it was from D&D until the 2nd session). It turned him off the game, because without the game-rules there to consult.... dead meant DEAD (no narrative control) which made him feel like "he lost".

Quote from: rabalias;569844I was simply pointing out that as (a) a game in which (b) roleplaying happens and (c) stories are told, it seems an odd claim that it is neither a story game nor a roleplaying game.

And it's truly bizarre to claim -- as you are claiming here -- that Arkham Horror, Risk, and Super Mario Bros. are all roleplaying games.

When you use the word "roleplaying game" are you truly thinking of Super Mario Bros.? If not, then you need to revisit your definition. If so, then I think you need to resolve yourself to the fact that your usage of the term simply does not match the way the vast majority of people use and understand the term.

Quote from: Telarus;569865Your Improv-play-system fails the "Game Test" because while the outcome is Uncertain, it's not ultimately Quantifiable. It totally counts as "Play" tho (and there is an important distinction). It's kind-of light on the "Strategies" angle, too (no goals, risks, or rewards are tied to your mechanics).

I agree that under the definition you've supplied, it's probably not a game. Of course, that's your definition. I'm grateful to you for supplying it - it makes the discussion a lo easier - but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I certainly don't see why anyone would accept it above the dictionary definition, which is the normal means to overcome the lack of inherent meaning that you have highlighted.

By way of progressing the discussion, I would suggest, in line with Wittgenstein, that games cannot be strictly defined at all but merely have a family resemblance to each other. Which, of course, means our discussion is essentially empty, as it is a matter of judgement and perception who is right. Some of the characteristics that you have highlighted are commonly the property of games, but not all games. It is therefore inevitable that where something lacks these common properties there is disagreement over where the boundaries lie. As Wittgenstein said:

QuoteWhat still counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never troubled you before when you used the word "game".)

Perhaps the fact that one of the modern eras most famous philosophers was unable to tackle this problem is an indication that, uh, we're on a hiding to nothing.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;569916And it's truly bizarre to claim -- as you are claiming here -- that Arkham Horror, Risk, and Super Mario Bros. are all roleplaying games.

For someone who was earlier getting quite annoyed about me claiming that you were saying something you never said, you do a fine line in it yourself.

I am assuming from the quote above that you have misread what I mean by "roleplaying". I assume you are playing off the fact that in Mario Bros you "play" a "role"  ie. that of Mario (or whoever). If I've got that wrong then the rest of what I say in response probably won't make sense.

By "play a role" I mean something along the lines of "put yourself in a character's shoes and say what they say and do what they do, within the restrictions imposed by the game". In a LARP the restrictions referred to are minimal (usually, but not always, no full contact fighting, no use of real weapons, no thrusting with boffer weapons); in a tabletop the restrictions are that you only talk as your character and use the dice to deal with their actions and/or verbally describe them. In WtDiG you are acting out your character entirely, but it's implicit that you won't in fact be punching each other or whatnot (possibly needs stating in the book!).

At any rate, in Super Mario you do not do this. (Well, I don't.) Same with Risk, same with Arkham Horror. As a matter of fact though, I do know someone who has run Arkham Horror as a roleplaying game on more than one occasion. I guess they probably fiddled the rules a bit, but not much; the main distinction was that they were, uh, roleplaying.

It's impossible to try to categorise "role playing game" as distinct from "story game" without a whole load of question begging and special pleading and "yeah but you know what I mean"....As far as I'm concerned that means they are so close to one another that pretending there is a distinction is totally arbitrary: it's a spectrum, with infinite shades between the two extremes. And it varies from group to group as much as it does from game to game, I would imagine.

Following Telarus's lead:

I've played a lot of trad roleplaying games, from LRP to classic tabletop. In the last year or so I've played a lot of so-called story games (Fiasco, Durance, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, Archipelago, Microscope, Apocalypse World).

My experience of the latter has been that some of them really aren't all that different from trad RPGs. Apocalypse World, for instance, has a GM, who does prep in advance to work out the sort of crap he's going to be throwing at the players. The only difference I observe is (by trad game standards) an unusual system and the injunction not to try and work out in advance what is going to happen - something which tends to chime with the way I roleplay, though I admit to having spent hours as a GM trying to figure out the different actions my players might take in advance of the session.

Others though are radically different. The first difference is that they often hand out power traditionally associated with the GM to all the players. Fiasco being a prime example. That's cool for me because I often GM anyway, but could be a struggle for some players I imagine. Having said that I've never seen anyone struggle with it, including people who have never GMed before.

The other difference is the frequent lack of any prep at all. If you'd asked me 5 years ago whether I'd like to run a game without any prep, I would have been daunted. I felt that prep was pretty much the only thing that allowed me to keep my game together. Otherwise I'd go forgetting who my NPCs were, why they were here, and generally messing stuff up. I've been pleasantly surprised at how easy it is to manage this, especially when the power is divided between several GMs (so there's no pressure on one person to be the guy who knows everything).The fact that these games often provide mechanisms to help you remember crap in the form of printed character sheet-esque crib sheets really helps.

So anyway; I'd say I'm equally comfortable with both modes of play. Doing story games has made me lazy though - when I go back to my regular (Dark Heresy) campaign I tend to dread doing the prep that's required, something I used to look forward to. I wouldn't blame my story gaming experiences on that as such - after many years of doing this campaign I was starting to flag anyway - but they do highlight the difference to me. I'll definitely be doing both kinds of roleplaying in years to come.