Quote from: Peregrin;421443Seanchai was just using the example for attention...

Not for attention per se, but to show how ridiculous it is to try and segregate so-called storygames from other RPGs based on whether or not you like them.

That's what it comes down to. "Storygames" being lumped in with "classic" or "traditional" games doesn't do harm to either category, doesn't harm the hobby, and doesn't harm the participants. People don't want "storygames" to be RPGs so they can set "storygames" down on a lower rung of the ladder and segregate themselves from them.

As you pointed out, the differences between the two are basically negligible. One focuses more on story than another. One has a different approach than another. Big deal.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;421301Now, 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.

While I will admit to having posted giant scads of text here in recent weeks, the issues I was raising had nothing to do with "story games"; I made a real effort to focus on D&D in all my examples.

If you want to call some role-playing games "story games" instead, be my guest. It makes it harder to talk about the games we all enjoy, but if it's important to some people, so be it.

What happens, to me at least, on this site, is that I will try to make a point about game mechanics or playing styles, and someone comes along and says "Whatever. That's not a role-playing game!" to be argumentative and derail the discussion.

Since I happen to disagree with that sentiment, I'll respond. Then someone else, say, Benoist, will say "But why do you CARE so much?" But really, that isn't the thing I cared enough to talk about. It's a diversion. My "narrative authority" thread has emphatically NOT about "story games".

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.

Truth!

My wife is quite smart, and knows what RPGs are, and if I handed her my copies of Burning Wheel, D&D 3E, D&D 4E, Savage Worlds, In A Wicked Age, and Spirit if the Century, patiently explained the rules differences, and then asked her to separate them into two distinct piles (true role-playing games and story games), she would look at me like I was a crazy person.

The differences from game to game are far more significant than any kind of arbitrary binary system.

Quote from: Peregrin;421445Just 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?

Absolutely by the book? It's a different game, yes.

Quote from: Grymbok;421150It just feels to me like you're just getting really hung up on the particular language you want to use.

I would say the same thing in reverse.

I picked the word "authority" merely because I thought it was the most appropriate word for the phenomenon I was describing. I did not anticipate the fiercely negative response to that particular word.

It seems to me that -for some people - the concept of "authority" is closely bound up with what they see as fundamental aspects of the game; aspects that they believe to be threatened by alternate models. But I meant it in a purely descriptive sense: "Who gets to say what happens?"

If I had it to do over, I'd use a different word ("agency"?). But, from my viewpoint, I'm not the one who's getting too distracted by word choice. Quite the opposite!

I notice you guys are switching the tables on me by asking me why it matters to me to differenciate role playing games from story games, which I DID answer, but you still haven't answered why it would matter to you to have story games recognized as role playing games, beyond the "distinction is kinda useless" bit, which I found unconvincing as the impetus to write dozens upon dozens for full-screen(s) posts on the topic.

So, why is it so important? Quid Pro Quo, people.

Quote from: BWA;421462It seems to me that -for some people - the concept of "authority" is closely bound up with what they see as fundamental aspects of the game; aspects that they believe to be threatened by alternate models. But I meant it in a purely descriptive sense: "Who gets to say what happens?"

I don't believe they would be threatened, just that some fundamental aspects of play would actually be modified by alternate models of play - hence "alternate models." It is another matter entirely which to call the RPG or not, but it's not really my point. But I think that understanding there is (as I would argue) a difference in the basic play of games is useful.

If you have Game A, which features what you would describe as a model of "shared narrative authority," and Game B, which is a "Traditional" game in the purest sense, and we assume that the fundamentals of play are the same between the two, it would tend to imply that a given approach toward Game A that produced good results would naturally produce good results in Game B.  

If we work from the position that the fundamentals between the two are substantially different, there is less reason to assume that a model that improves gameplay for Game A is likely to improve gameplay for Game B. (Theoretically, it still may, but requires more demonstration to convince that it will.)

None of this should be taken to assert that the play model of either Game A or Game B is intrinsically superior. I admit that I, personally, would be more likely to prefer Game B all things being equal, but that is a matter of preference that is entirely subjective.

Quote from: BenI notice you guys are switching the tables on me by asking me why it matters to me to differenciate role playing games from story games, which I DID answer, but you still haven't answered why it would matter to you to have story games recognized as role playing games, beyond the "distinction is kinda useless" bit, which I found unconvincing as the impetus to write dozens upon dozens for full-screen(s) posts on the topic.

So, why is it so important? Quid Pro Quo, people.

I wouldn't mind at all if they were called story-games.  There are a few indie games that can't be called RPGs by any stretch of the imagination, and even the authors acknowledge it (Spione, being a prime example).

I just don't think it's practical, especially when you start setting your sights on the games that straddle the fence.  Sort of like how I personally don't think a lot of JRPGs are actually RPGs when you try to qualify them, but they share enough elements, however superficial, that gaming culture as a whole doesn't see a great need to argue that Japanese people should stop calling their adventure games RPGs.

Quote"But we Yooks, as you know,
when we breakfast or sup,
spread our bread," Grandpa said,
"with the butter side up.
That's the right, honest way!"
Grandpa gritted his teeth.
"So you can't trust a Zook who spreads bread underneath!
Every Zook must be watched!
He has kinks in his soul!
That's why, as a youth, I made watching my goal,
watching Zooks for the Zook-Watching Border Patrol!"

The only area in which the naming conventions matter to me, is that I'm not sure which reviews would be considered "safe" to post here, as they might be off the "RPG" field and into the "storygame" field, which is why I spend a lot less time even bothering.

Quote from: Peregrin;421477Sort of like how I personally don't think a lot of JRPGs are actually RPGs when you try to qualify them, but they share enough elements, however superficial, that gaming culture as a whole doesn't see a great need to argue that Japanese people should stop calling their adventure games RPGs.

However, if games that you consider to be actually RPGs start picking up elements from JRPGs, and now a couple of RPG franchises you liked to play now are quite different, yet still just considered RPGs as if there was no difference, don't you think it might be useful at that point to start drawing some distinctions?

Quote from: Benoist;421465I notice you guys are switching the tables on me by asking me why it matters to me to differenciate role playing games from story games, which I DID answer, but you still haven't answered why it would matter to you to have story games recognized as role playing games, beyond the "distinction is kinda useless" bit, which I found unconvincing as the impetus to write dozens upon dozens for full-screen(s) posts on the topic.

So, why is it so important? Quid Pro Quo, people.

The way I see it, RPG is a broad category that includes all kinds of things, of which Story Games and "Trad RPGs" are just two examples. The problem really is that we use RPG to refer to both the category as a whole and those games which descended from D&D within it. If we called all the Trad RPGs something else (like "Adventure Games") then there would be less arguments.

Or to put it another way - Trad RPGs and Story Games are different things, but they're also both RPGs.

Quote from: BWA;421462I would say the same thing in reverse.

I picked the word "authority" merely because I thought it was the most appropriate word for the phenomenon I was describing. I did not anticipate the fiercely negative response to that particular word.

It seems to me that -for some people - the concept of "authority" is closely bound up with what they see as fundamental aspects of the game; aspects that they believe to be threatened by alternate models. But I meant it in a purely descriptive sense: "Who gets to say what happens?"

If I had it to do over, I'd use a different word ("agency"?). But, from my viewpoint, I'm not the one who's getting too distracted by word choice. Quite the opposite!

It's not about how people view the concept of "authority", it's about the meaning of the word in the English language.

My Mac's dictionary gives three definitions for "authority":
1 the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
2 (often authorities) a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere
3 the power to influence others, esp. because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something

None of these map to the player's role in a Trad RPG. Definition 1 is the relevant one, obviously, but, as we've discussed at length, the players do not have that power. Only the GM does.

Quote from: Benoist;421465I notice you guys are switching the tables on me by asking me why it matters to me to differenciate role playing games from story games, which I DID answer, but you still haven't answered why it would matter to you to have story games recognized as role playing games, beyond the "distinction is kinda useless" bit, which I found unconvincing as the impetus to write dozens upon dozens for full-screen(s) posts on the topic.

So, why is it so important? Quid Pro Quo, people.

Dude, I totally answered you. Whether or not you accept the validity of the answer is on you.

Quote from: Grymbok;421701It's not about how people view the concept of "authority", it's about the meaning of the word in the English language.

My Mac's dictionary gives three definitions for "authority":
1 the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
2 (often authorities) a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere
3 the power to influence others, esp. because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something

None of these map to the player's role in a Trad RPG. Definition 1 is the relevant one, obviously, but, as we've discussed at length, the players do not have that power. Only the GM does.

Well, while this thread is somewhat meandering, it was predicated on stipulating that players DO have narrative authority. So it doesn't seem valuable to get into arguing the point here, especially since there was just a 50+ page thread on that very topic that led to this one.

The short answer is that I disagree with your contention that none of these map to a player's role in a trad RPG. I think that they do.

The long answer, if you like, is contained in the prior thread. Many, many, many times over. Plus a lot of nonsense, deliberate obtuseness and name-calling.

Quote from: Cole;421474I don't believe they would be threatened, just that some fundamental aspects of play would actually be modified by alternate models of play - hence "alternate models."

I don't think they are threatened in the slightest. If anything, play of new and different RPGs probably tends to increase play of older, more-traditional RPGs.

However, you can't deny that people on this forum feel threatened by these newer games, which is what I was referring to.

A fun experiment to prove this empirically! Post a thread on why you like GURPS Alternate Worlds and it will go on for three agreeable pages. Post a thread on why you like The Mountain Witch and it will go one for 45 pages filled with dyspeptic rage.

To your other point, that techniques for Game A will not necessarily improve Game B, I agree completely.

More so, I think a cool set of games will all require their own techniques, many of which will not port from one to another.  If no new techniques are required for a new game, then you probably could have gotten the same enjoyment out of re-skinning your old game with a new setting.

Quote from: BWA;422576However, you can't deny that people on this forum feel threatened by these newer games, which is what I was referring to.

I didn't say no one would feel threatened.

Quote from: BWA;422576To your other point, that techniques for Game A will not necessarily improve Game B, I agree completely.

Fair enough - not everyone does, as the sprawling thread about whether D&D would be categorically improved by being run as a reskinned DitV.

Quote from: CRKrueger;421668However, if games that you consider to be actually RPGs start picking up elements from JRPGs, and now a couple of RPG franchises you liked to play now are quite different, yet still just considered RPGs as if there was no difference, don't you think it might be useful at that point to start drawing some distinctions?

It's impossible to do that without subjectively deciding where the line rests.  There is too much crossover already between design techniques in video and PC game design.  It's much easier to just judge a game on a case-by-case basis.