Quote from: Benoist;421072Seriously though. Why is it so much of a big deal to have story games recognized as RPGs, and not something else?

I loathe to get involved, but why is it such a big deal that they're NOT considered RPGs?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;421249I loathe to get involved, but why is it such a big deal that they're NOT considered RPGs?

To me, it basically boils down to "whatever game you play at your game table and enjoy is totally fine by me. When narrative/story theory creeps its way into the game design of classic role playing games, I start having a problem." Thus, I feel that clearly defining story games as another type of activity than the one taking place at a traditional role playing game's table is necessary for those two things to not get mixed up. People who like story games can continue to enjoy story games, and people who enjoy traditional RPGs can still enjoy their games.

Now, I'm still curious as to why this is so important to write thousands of words basically supporting the idea these are one and the same activity. The argument that the distinction is "mildly useless" seems a bit lame, to me. Quid?

Quote from: Benoist;421301People who like story games can continue to enjoy story games, and people who enjoy traditional RPGs can still enjoy their games.

As long as the story gamers drink at the story gamers only drinking fountains...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;421358As long as the story gamers drink at the story gamers only drinking fountains...

Seanchai

It is asinine to compare the discussion of hobby game categories to the struggle for civil rights in the American polis. Perhaps you want your ellipsis to sound like a collective gasp? It sounds like a rimshot.

While we're correcting massive social ills by talking about RPGs, let's not stop when we're just making strides, right? Perhaps we should stop unfairly segregating the professions of medical doctor and sports coach, too!

Wow. Really? Comparisons with the civil rights movement, really? :eek:

I'm going to try an experiment.  I'm going to find a relatively simple "trad" RPG design, say, Basic D&D.  Then I'll take a relatively simple story-game design that maintains the one-player-to-one-PC formula.  Hand them to an everyday human being, and if they're unable to tell the difference, then the only explanation for wanting some sort of terminological barrier between the two will be tribalism.

See, a normal person can tell a doctor from a coach, even if they don't know anything about medicine or sports.  I don't think the same can be said for RPGs -- it takes quite a bit of subcultural involvement and design knowledge to really make clear distinctions between most RPGs and story-games, when it's even possible to do so.

Quote from: Peregrin;421370I'm going to try an experiment.  I'm going to find a relatively simple "trad" RPG design, say, Basic D&D.  Then I'll take a relatively simple story-game design that maintains the one-player-to-one-PC formula.  Hand them to an everyday human being, and if they're unable to tell the difference, then the only explanation for wanting some sort of terminological barrier between the two will be tribalism.

That doesn't even remotely make sense to me either.
So because a layman wouldn't know the different between a neutron and a proton, they're basically the same thing? Huh? :confused:

That neutron nonsense isn't really physics.

Quote from: Peregrin;421370I'm going to try an experiment.  I'm going to find a relatively simple "trad" RPG design, say, Basic D&D.  Then I'll take a relatively simple story-game design that maintains the one-player-to-one-PC formula.  Hand them to an everyday human being, and if they're unable to tell the difference, then the only explanation for wanting some sort of terminological barrier between the two will be tribalism.

See, a normal person can tell a doctor from a coach, even if they don't know anything about medicine or sports.  I don't think the same can be said for RPGs -- it takes quite a bit of subcultural involvement and design knowledge to really make clear distinctions between most RPGs and story-games, when it's even possible to do so.

Peregrin, I am fine with someone maintaining the position that the two types of games are in actuality only one type. I don't entirely agree, but I think that there are things we can learn in the discussion about which is the case.

What I object to is the preposterous implication of a societal injustice implicit in claiming the two are different. Maybe a better analogy would have been "(sportsman) hunter" vs. "target shooter" or something.

Quote from: two_fishes;421376That neutron nonsense isn't really physics.

Everyone well knows that a proton is an composite of elementary particles, while a neutron is a dance.

Quote from: two_fishes;421376That neutron nonsense isn't really physics.

Well, sorry for speaking French, originally. :rolleyes:

Everyone got my point though (I assume, if you're not braindead).

Quote from: ColeWhat I object to is the preposterous implication of a societal injustice implicit in claiming the two are different. Maybe a better analogy would have been "(sportsman) hunter" vs. "target shooter" or something.

I know.  Seanchai was just using the example for attention, you called him on it.

Quote from: Benoist;421372That doesn't even remotely make sense to me either.
So because a layman wouldn't know the different between a neutron and a proton, they're basically the same thing? Huh? :confused:

We're not talking physics, though, we're talking games.  Everyday folk can understand games.  You don't need a background in game-theory to get what makes Dogs in the Vineyard different from D&D.  What I'm questioning is whether such a generalized division is even useful or even accurate when applied en masse, or whether it's a reactionary meme being amplified by geek tribalism.

For example, Burning Wheel by your definition is a story-game -- it says right within the first few paragraphs that play is about creating stories and drama, not about inhabiting the life of the character (the way I think Runequest describes RP).  But when you break it down into pieces, it's really not all that different from a trad RPG, and the distinction becomes fuzzy in a lot of places, and this happens with a lot of story-games.  Similarly you have some d20 games that use "narrative" bits like Fantasy Craft (action dice that players can spend to "skip" or influence a scene) or Mutants & Masterminds (via character complications and invoking them for bennies), and those mechanics are in place to create more drama during play rather than help emulate the world.

So who gets to decide where the line is drawn?  Who gets to tell the d20 gamers who use drama and story elements that they're not really playing RPGs?  I don't think anyone is qualified to do that.  That's not to say there aren't extremes -- there are some RPGs that might be better off as wargames, and there are literal "story-games" with no GM and no one-play-per-character convention.  But I think a lot of those are atypical in the grand scheme of things.

Quote from: Peregrin;421443Burning Wheel by your definition is a story-game (...) ut when you break it down into pieces, it's really not all that different from a trad RPG

My contention is that it *is* different. See that thread.

Just to clarify, would you say someone running the Dragonlance series of modules BtB is playing a different game than someone running AD&D with a home-brew wilderness adventure area?

Quote from: Peregrin;421370I'm going to try an experiment.  I'm going to find a relatively simple "trad" RPG design, say, Basic D&D.  Then I'll take a relatively simple story-game design that maintains the one-player-to-one-PC formula.  Hand them to an everyday human being, and if they're unable to tell the difference, then the only explanation for wanting some sort of terminological barrier between the two will be tribalism.

See, a normal person can tell a doctor from a coach, even if they don't know anything about medicine or sports.  I don't think the same can be said for RPGs -- it takes quite a bit of subcultural involvement and design knowledge to really make clear distinctions between most RPGs and story-games, when it's even possible to do so.

I can explain the difference between D&D and Baron Munchausen. It's actually pretty simple: in an RPg you play a character in a world created and described by a GM; in a storygame you take turns telling part of a story round-robin style with a group that may or may not include a "director" in the GM spot. I think these are distinct enough concepts that anyone could easily grasp. OTOH, personally, until there's a generally agreed upon distinct term for the one type of game rather than the other, I'm willing to call a game whatever it wants to say it is. I would think , though, that story-games could potentially have their own market if they were willing to cut the umbilical cord with RPGs.