I see a lot of people here put both types on the same sack, but I think they are different. In fact, I love a lot of the second type ones, but the first type never did anything for me. Also interesting to note is the fact that the second group is only called “storygames” here in theRPGsite - in my experience, they are called RPGs elsewhere.
Storygames: focus on shared narration or creation of stories collaboratively, making extensive use of meta-gaming rules and/or out-of-character stances. They may include traditional mechanics or stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Fiasco, Polaris, My Life with Master, Universalis, This Mortal Coil, Shock:, A Penny for My Thoughts, Once Upon a Time, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, etc.
“Storygames”: focus on roleplaying a fictional alter-ego, making extensive use of in-game rules and in-character stances. There may be meta-game rules and/or out-of-character stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Amber, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don’t Rest Your Head, 3:16, Fate, Agon, Freemarket, Houses of the Blooded (+Blood & Honor), Apocalypse World (+Dungeon World, Tremulus, Monster of the Week, Monsterhearts, The Regiment, Saga of the Icelanders, Ghost Lines, etc), Lady Blackbird, Mouse Guard, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Doctor Who, The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, The Mountain Witch, Sorcerer, Octane, Wushu, Primetime Adventures, Cold City (+Hot War), etc.
So, can we agree that those 2 groups have definite differences regarding the intended goals and experiences at the table, to allow a separate categorization ? Anyone else like one style but do not like the other ?
What is a stance? Can you describe this, or post a link to where this is described?
I've seen some other posters, here, that have provided some reasonable terms for this differentiation. (CRKrueger?). Shared Narrative game seems to cover the first category fairly well. Personally I would use Non-Traditional Rpg to define the latter, or Fictiongame, but I would need a clear definition of a stance to really be able to identify what they are. If you remove that term from your definition, those games sound like traditional Rpgs, which they are clearly not.
Sorry, K. By stance I meant its most simple and prosaic form really, as in-character or out-of-character / first-person or third-person. And I agree that "non-traditional roleplaying" is a good label for the second group.
Nice avatar, btw. ;)
I would definitely agree there is a clear difference between Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which is a collaborative storytelling parlour game, or Once Upon a Time, a storytelling card game, and something like Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, which is an RPG with player narrative control.
However, I would see it as more of a continuum where you have RPGs with limited player narrative control at one extreme and story games with limited roleplaying at the other extreme.
I don't mind games at the limited narrative control end of the spectrum such as WFRP with its "get out of jail free" fate points.
Nice words, yojimbo. Definitely its more of a continuum than a clear separation. And I just added the Adventures of Baron Munchausen to the OP. Thanks.
And btw, I think the second group (or at least part of it) is what some people call New School nowadays.
I don't understand why DrWho is in that list. It's a bog- standard rpg.
Tristram, in Doctor Who: adventures in Time and Space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%E2%80%93_Adventures_in_Time_and_Space:_The_Roleplaying_Game) the players can edit the in-game fiction by spendig Story Points. And its use is much more active than your average trad rpg "Hero point", or at least thats the impression Ive got from reading reviews.
Quote from: silva;675945Tristram, in Doctor Who: adventures in Time and Space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%E2%80%93_Adventures_in_Time_and_Space:_The_Roleplaying_Game) the players can edit the in-game fiction by spendig Story Points. And its use is much more active than your average trad rpg "Hero point", or at least thats the impression Ive got from reading reviews.
Nah, it's not a fiction- editing device at all. It's just an adaptation of FASERIP's karma points. They are used to pull off 'power stunts' which just means the character can do a one-time extraordinary thing (like absorb the TARDIS power matrix or jiggery- pokey an alien detector from household items) . Despite the name, it's not a narrative device and the GM decides what's possible and how many points it would cost.
The story point section of the Gm guide is pretty involved. They are used for lots of different things in the game. They are described as potentially reality bending, and cover a range of uses, from improving your skill roll results to using certain devices (which have their own story points) to "bend[ing] the plot and manipulat[ing] the story". I think their main function is to keep characters alive. The GM has final say in their use and the section makes all the potential uses look more like suggestions than hard and fast rules (i imagine some groups might avoid using them to make an npc fall in love with one of the main characters, while others would totally go for that). It all seems designed to have it emulate the feel of the new doctor who series. This is my take on the story point mechanics at least.
It is a good game in my opinion. Personally I wouldn't call it a storygame. It feels like a regular rpg to me with some heavy cinematic mechanics. I suspect some might feel it crosses the line into storygame territory.
Personally I am getting tired of this storygame debate. This thread seems like it is all about re-ignite that debate. Maybe we should just talk about the individual games here instead?
Quote from: TristramEvans;675961Nah, it's not a fiction- editing device at all. It's just an adaptation of FASERIP's karma points. They are used to pull off 'power stunts' which just means the character can do a one-time extraordinary thing (like absorb the TARDIS power matrix or jiggery- pokey an alien detector from household items) . Despite the name, it's not a narrative device and the GM decides what's possible and how many points it would cost.
Tristram, the link I gave cites the "Story Points" it can be used for "editing" the fiction in various ways, from succeeding in a task, to making something appear out of this air, to make an NPC fall in love with you.
Quote from: silva;675905I see a lot of people here put both types on the same sack, but I think they are different. In fact, I love a lot of the second type ones, but the first type never did anything for me. Also interesting to note is the fact that the second group is only called "storygames" here in theRPGsite - in my experience, they are called RPGs elsewhere.
Storygames: focus on shared narration or creation of stories collaboratively, making extensive use of meta-gaming rules and/or out-of-character stances. They may include traditional mechanics or stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Fiasco, Polaris, My Life with Master, Universalis, This Mortal Coil, Shock:, A Penny for My Thoughts, Once Upon a Time, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, etc.
"Storygames": focus on roleplaying a fictional alter-ego, making extensive use of in-game rules and in-character stances. There may be meta-game rules and/or out-of-character stances, but those are subtle/not the focus/take a secondary role. Eg: Amber, The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don't Rest Your Head, 3:16, Fate, Agon, Freemarket, Houses of the Blooded (+Blood & Honor), Apocalypse World (+Dungeon World, Tremulus, Monster of the Week, Monsterhearts, The Regiment, Saga of the Icelanders, Ghost Lines, etc), Lady Blackbird, Mouse Guard, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Doctor Who, The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, The Mountain Witch, Sorcerer, Octane, Wushu, Primetime Adventures, Cold City (+Hot War), etc.
So, can we agree that those 2 groups have definite differences regarding the intended goals and experiences at the table, to allow a separate categorization ? Anyone else like one style but do not like the other ?
I endorse this message. However, the second group most certainly are called storygames elsewhere on the net, just without the baggage of storygames not being thought of as RPGs.
What seems to happen on this site is that criticisms that only apply to group 1 are applied to group 2 as well by association. So we are told that fairly straightforward storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel are instead some completely different hobby akin to writing a novel or riding a bike because mumble mumble GM authority.
Quote from: silva;675967Tristram, the link I gave cites the "Story Points" it can be used for "editing" the fiction in various ways, from succeeding in a task, to making something appear out of this air, to make an NPC fall in love with you.
Ah, I see. I don't know if I have enough time to explain now, but I think you were misled a little. First off, it doesn't give 'editing powers' in that a player can't contradict what the GM says; they could however, if they were in a doctor's office ask " can I find a spare lab coat to wear as a disguise?" the GM may say yes, if the player is willing to spend a story point. But this is only because a) it's a likely item to find there ( a player could not make the same request in a gas station), B) it doesn't contradict the gm's description of the doctor's office , and c) it depends entirely on GM approval. A player could not spend points to have a costume appear out of thin air, and there is no assumed or predetermined plot/ narrative in the game to 'edit'. It can break the laws of reality, in that the Doctor could spendc 20 sps to 'reboot history' ( although Amy's player would still have to manage to remember him, before he could come back).its the flexible reality of space-time that's referring to.
Story Points are basically luck points. They're a meta-mechanic, sure, but no more so than Karma Points or Fate points in Top Secret, Warhammer, James Bond, MSH , Earthdawn or DCH.
Thread makes sense. Type 1 games aren't really my thing, type 2 games are.
Quote from: TristramEvans;676020It can break the laws of reality, in that the Doctor could spendc 20 sps to 'reboot history' ( although Amy's player would still have to manage to remember him, before he could come back).its the flexible reality of space-time that's referring to.
That was totally Amy's story point spend. The Doctor blew all his in the museum.
Quote from: SovietWhat seems to happen on this site is that criticisms that only apply to group 1 are applied to group 2 as well by association. So we are told that fairly straightforward storygame RPGs like Burning Wheel are instead some completely different hobby akin to writing a novel or riding a bike because mumble mumble GM authority.
Yup, pretty much this.
Quote from: TristramEvans;676020Ah, I see. I don't know if I have enough time to explain now, but I think you were misled a little. First off, it doesn't give 'editing powers' in that a player can't contradict what the GM says; they could however, if they were in a doctor's office ask " can I find a spare lab coat to wear as a disguise?" the GM may say yes, if the player is willing to spend a story point. But this is only because a) it's a likely item to find there ( a player could not make the same request in a gas station), B) it doesn't contradict the gm's description of the doctor's office , and c) it depends entirely on GM approval. A player could not spend points to have a costume appear out of thin air, and there is no assumed or predetermined plot/ narrative in the game to 'edit'. It can break the laws of reality, in that the Doctor could spendc 20 sps to 'reboot history' ( although Amy's player would still have to manage to remember him, before he could come back).its the flexible reality of space-time that's referring to.
Story Points are basically luck points. They're a meta-mechanic, sure, but no more so than Karma Points or Fate points in Top Secret, Warhammer, James Bond, MSH , Earthdawn or DCH.
Oh cool. That makes sense. Thanks for the explaination Tristram.
Quote from: BedrockBrendanPersonally I am getting tired of this storygame debate. This thread seems like it is all about re-ignite that debate.
My intention here is just to express a feeling that, contrary to what a lot of guys around here believe, those 2 types of games are in fact distinct, and are perceived like that by the majority of people everywhere on the net or in the meat world.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;675962Personally I am getting tired of this storygame debate. This thread seems like it is all about re-ignite that debate. Maybe we should just talk about the individual games here instead?
It's hilarious that some posters spend all their time crying over definitions and where certain game discussions go and yet don't talk about those games at all - just the definitions and where they go.
Kinda says that they're more interested in having a fight than actually discussing the games themselves - or perhaps they don't play them at all and just have a few pdfs on the old hard-drive...
One Horse, dont know if your post was directed at me or not. If that was the case, please, I ask you to direct it at me the next time. And about discussing individual games, sure, Im all open to it.
But the thread was opened to point out a clearly identifiable pattern around here. If its not valid for you, thats ok because no one is forcing you to patcicipate. Keep in mind though, that it is perfectly valid for other people.
Quote from: silva;676136My intention here is just to express a feeling that, contrary to what a lot of guys around here believe, those 2 types of games are in fact distinct, and are perceived like that by the majority of people everywhere on the net or in the meat world.
Understood. But I have to agree with OHT on this one and this seems to be what most of your threads end up being about. Personally I would love to see some discussion of the games you listed (in both lists). Largely because I don't know a lot about some of them and am interested in your take. this constant debate over definitions and categorizations is seriously draining my interest in online rpg discussions (it isn't just here, other forums have their own pet debates--often centered around definitions as well). I guess I have stopped caring about what box a given game goes in. If you really like the games listed there, get people excited to try them out.
Take Doctor Who. It is a great game. I have the boxed set and love it. Some folks are going to label story points a narrative mechanic, some won't. Personally I don't care. I don't waste any energy worrying about whether someone online objects to calling it an RPG. And I do not allow online rpg discusions to limit what I play at my table. Would much rather see a discusion about the game itself, that doesn't get bogged down in what to label one aspect of the system, that inspires me at the table. Same for stuff like Torchbearer or AW. In my opinion these sorts of thread that focus on the divide, only deepen it.
Are people confusing a character having the ability to pull off a heroic and epic feat with a player controlling the narrative?
Quote from: Bill;676177Are people confusing a character having the ability to pull off a heroic and epic feat with a player controlling the narrative?
Nope. Except if you consider producing things out of thin air, or making an NPC fall in love with you as "heroic and epic" feat. :D
Quote from: silva;676180Nope. Except if you consider producing things out of thin air, or making an NPC fall in love with you as "heroic and epic" feat. :D
If the character has this power in the world itself, it's emulation, not narrative control. A magic user casting a fire ball is producing such an effect out of thin air because he has the power to do it. A PC giving a love elixir to an NPC and causing that NPC to fall in love is doing this in the game world, not as a result of a "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative".
An Amberite can alter reality and produce things out of thin air because that's what Amberites ARE in the game world, not because of a meta-game "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative." The CHARACTER does it, IN the game world, not the player OUT of it.
Quote from: BenoistIf the character has this power in the world itself, it's emulation, not narrative control..
Yup, and no one is arguing the contrary. Its the difference between, say, Vampire´s Willpower and Shadowrun´s Karma - the first has an in-fiction causality, while the second has not.
Quote from: Benoist;676185If the character has this power in the world itself, it's emulation, not narrative control. A magic user casting a fire ball is producing such an effect out of thin air because he has the power to do it. A PC giving a love elixir to an NPC and causing that NPC to fall in love is doing this in the game world, not as a result of a "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative".
An Amberite can alter reality and produce things out of thin air because that's what Amberites ARE in the game world, not because of a meta-game "creative agenda" or by virtue of "controlling the narrative." The CHARACTER does it, IN the game world, not the player OUT of it.
As far as I can gather, that's why Pundit doesn't consider Amber a story game, though he would of those same mechanics existed in another setting. Which suggests to me that at least a large part of whether a rpg is considered a story game is based on a gamebook's ability to rationalize its mechanics based on the setting. I'm wondering how explicit this would have to be though. If a player can rationalize an abstract mecjhanic in the context of their setting does this matter if the gamebook itself doesn't provide this explanation? And does that mean any story game could be an rpg if paired with the right setting?
Certainly the story points of DrWho fit the emulation of that TV show, but it's still not even remotely simulationist it's in approach ( GNS seems to lack any acknowledgement of emulationist as a motivation, or confuses it with 'narrativism' which is amusing). So then, taking a game that is all about emulation, like The One Ring, why does it not get the 'pass' of being a 'real rpg' granted to Amber? And is the divide between story game vs " story game" actually more like 'storygame' vs 'emulation game' ( prefer 'genre game' as a term myself, even though its technically inaccurate)?
Good points, Tristram. And I like the term "genre game".
Quote from: TristramEvans;676239As far as I can gather, that's why Pundit doesn't consider Amber a story game, though he would of those same mechanics existed in another setting. Which suggests to me that at least a large part of whether a rpg is considered a story game is based on a gamebook's ability to rationalize its mechanics based on the setting. I'm wondering how explicit this would have to be though. If a player can rationalize an abstract mecjhanic in the context of their setting does this matter if the gamebook itself doesn't provide this explanation? And does that mean any story game could be an rpg if paired with the right setting?
That's fascinating and hilarious.
I was going to say no, and wrote several supporting arguments, but counter-argued myself out of them.
Quote from: silva;676186Yup, and no one is arguing the contrary. Its the difference between, say, Vampire´s Willpower and Shadowrun´s Karma - the first has an in-fiction causality, while the second has not.
Spoiler
Eh, you have to remember Shadowrun is the future of Earthdawn. All of the races of Shadowrun are what in Earthdawn would be called "Namegivers", these races are tied to the magical fabric of the world. Even a normal human who isn't "magical" can create, and when he does, he weaves a Pattern that brings something into existence that did not exist before.
Karma is representative of that power. It can be used to better oneself, basically reweaving your own Pattern to make yourself stronger, faster, more skilled, what have you, or it can be used in a very limited fashion to alter things, to grab victory from the jaws of defeat.
The linkage isn't made very explicit because that was one of the "big reveals" of the metaplot.
Thats an interesting explanation, Krueger. But you have to agree with me that, since Shadowrun itself dont explain that, its only a interpretation and not a canonical definition. I, for one, have never read, played or cared for the other setting, and then, for me, Karma is what is written in the book - a meta-game mechanic for helping characters out when the player sees fit.
Quote from: One Horse Town;676143It's hilarious that some posters spend all their time crying over definitions and where certain game discussions go and yet don't talk about those games at all - just the definitions and where they go.
I'd love to talk about Tenra Bansho Zero on therpgsite but I'm not allowed to talk about it in the roleplaying games section so I have to do it elsewhere. It is a regrettable situation, I agree.
QuoteKinda says that they're more interested in having a fight than actually discussing the games themselves - or perhaps they don't play them at all and just have a few pdfs on the old hard-drive...
3/10, needs stronger insinuations (also, claiming time spent talking about games online is equivalent to time spent playing games is kinda funny)
I don't think categories have any intrinsic use. I think they're only useful as shorthand, mostly to help people find games they like and avoid ones they don't like.
A bit like genres. Where does SF end? Well, it doesn't, eventually it blurs into fantasy, into thrillers, into whatever. Why then have something called SF? Well, if mostly you don't like books with SF elements or mostly you do it's handy to have the term so you can avoid/seek out that bit of the bookshop. It's not though ever a fixed category, it's a handy shorthand.
So, storygames. Some people, Pundy say, really don't like a certain kind of game so it's a handy term for them to help them avoid games with those traits. Some others, Andy Kitkowski say, really like games with those traits so it's handy for them too. It's useful shorthand.
At the end though, there's no clear line. There's no point where one sort of game ends and the next begins. Buffy let's you edit scenes using drama points, but I've played it and as far as I'm concerned it's an utterly standard rpg. Fiasco is full on storytelling where the players act more as authors than participating through their characters. That's not a standard rpg. Where's the line between the two? There isn't one, there's just points along a gradient.
Quote from: vytzka;676660I'd love to talk about Tenra Bansho Zero on therpgsite but I'm not allowed to talk about it in the roleplaying games section so I have to do it elsewhere. It is a regrettable situation, I agree.
Yeah, I agree. Since DW was "released" there has finally been some good discussion on the Main Games forums about its approach to initiative, with almost none of the dirty hippy game outcry and absolutely none of the crying over it's definition.
I hope that TBZ may get another look at some stage, because I would love to talk about it here on this site too. At the moment, I don't because all discussion I want to have about it is RPG related.
Quote from: vytzka;676660I'd love to talk about Tenra Bansho Zero on therpgsite but I'm not allowed to talk about it in the roleplaying games section so I have to do it elsewhere. It is a regrettable situation, I agree.
Quote from: Skywalker;676973I hope that TBZ may get another look at some stage, because I would love to talk about it here on this site too. At the moment, I don't because all discussion I want to have about it is RPG related.
If you
really want to talk about
TBZ, then there's not a gawddamned thing preventing you from starting a thread in this forum and doing so.
However, it seems like you'd both rather talk about your butthurt over where the game is discussed
on this one website than actually talk about the game, so your lamentations are just so many ridiculous crocodile tears.
I see reading comprehension is not your strong side, Vulmea. Since everything you said was actually addressed by my post you quoted.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;677150If you really want to talk about TBZ, then there's not a gawddamned thing preventing you from starting a thread in this forum and doing so.
However, it seems like you'd both rather talk about your butthurt over where the game is discussed on this one website than actually talk about the game, so your lamentations are just so many ridiculous crocodile tears.
You miss the point in both of our responses.
Its also worth noting that the sort of discussion you denigrate here actually saw Dungeon World re-categorised as an RPG, which was followed by interesting RPG related discussion. Seems like a win all around.
Quote from: Skywalker;677202You miss the point in both of our responses.
Its also worth noting that the sort of discussion you denigrate here actually saw Dungeon World re-categorised as an RPG, which was followed by interesting RPG related discussion. Seems like a win all around.
For as much as some people around here say " we've got no problems with the games we've classified as story games they just need to be discussed in Other Games" and " I don't know why people act like Other Games is the 'gutter' ", they certainly do seem to stop by to threadcrap and try to shut down any conversations here a lot.
Just sayin'
Quote from: TristramEvans;677207For as much as some people around here say " we've got no problems with the games we've classified as story games they just need to be discussed in Other Games" and " I don't know why people act like Other Games is the 'gutter' ", they certainly do seem to stop by to threadcrap and try to shut down any conversations here a lot.
I promise you, it doesn't matter in which forum you put a post about
Apocalypse World, I won't read it either way, 'cause I don't give a shit.
The fact that Skywalker sees
DW being included in the main rpg forum as some kind of 'victory' does nothing but put a big ol' exclamation point at the end of my previous post.
Again, if you were really interested in writing about a particular game, you'd be writing about it, not whinging about which forum it goes in.
Just let Vulmea have his weekly threadcrap, guys. ;)
Greg Stafford took pains to call his Prince Valiant game a "storytelling game" and, IIRC, explicitly different from (i.e., not) an RPG.
The systematic difference, as I recall, came in with the rules for Storyteller Certificates. I think the main GM was still said to have veto power, but basically this was a limited handover of "narrative control."
All very primitive compared with later developments that cut straight to the narrative-control game, but I think still a notable shift in the player's role.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;677213I promise you, it doesn't matter in which forum you put a post about Apocalypse World, I won't read it either way, 'cause I don't give a shit.
The fact that Skywalker sees DW being included in the main rpg forum as some kind of 'victory' does nothing but put a big ol' exclamation point at the end of my previous post.
Again, if you were really interested in writing about a particular game, you'd be writing about it, not whinging about which forum it goes in.
I fail to see whinging about people whinging as much different is my point
Ouroboros of Whining.
Quote from: Rincewind1;677226Ouroboros of Whining.
Indeed.
Quote from: TristramEvans;677224I fail to see whinging about people whinging as much different is my point
'I can't post about the game I want where I want.'
'But you can still post about it, so post about it.'
'You're both whiners!'
Yeah, nice try at false equivalence, TE.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;677238'I can't post about the game I want where I want.'
'But you can still post about it, so post about it.'
'You're both whiners!'
Yeah, nice try at false equivalence, TE.
Nice try at a straw man to you my friend.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;677238'I can't post about the game I want where I want.'
'But you can still post about it, so post about it.'
'You're both whiners!'
Yeah, nice try at false equivalence, TE.
I know I can post about it in Other Games. I don't want to. That seems to bother you for some reason. Maybe you want to talk about it?
Why?
Because you don't want to start a thread that may not get as many looks as a thread in RPG Main Forum? - That seems a little odd.
Because you disagree that your game isn't an RPG on (insert grounds here) therefore you simply refuse? - You basically make Vulmea's point.
As far as TBZ goes, any game where, no matter what the character does, no matter what the character faces, no matter what the opposition does, no matter what happens in the setting PERIOD - the character absolutely positively cannot die unless the player checks a box that says "I choose to risk death and gain the corresponding mechanical benefit." isn't going to get quantified as an RPG here.
If you can't see why, you are incapable of seeing that narrative breaking point, well, then dunno what to tell ya. Enjoy the never-ending threads about where it is and the passive-aggressive "Oh there's lots of meaningful gaming discussion to be had, IF ONLY..." statements.
Quote from: CRKrueger;677429Why?
Because you don't want to start a thread that may not get as many looks as a thread in RPG Main Forum? - That seems a little odd.
It seems odd that I prefer to put effort in posting content and encouraging discussion in forums where I can expect majority of the audience to see it rather than just a part of it? Really? Because it doesn't to me and I don't do copypaste threads over all gaming forums I read like some people.
QuoteBecause you disagree that your game isn't an RPG on (insert grounds here) therefore you simply refuse? - You basically make Vulmea's point.
I don't see why I should spend my own efforts to legitimize Pundit's political bullshit. If he wants to start threads about TBZ in Open, he can be my guest. I might even post if anything interesting happens.
QuoteAs far as TBZ goes, any game where, no matter what the character does, no matter what the character faces, no matter what the opposition does, no matter what happens in the setting PERIOD - the character absolutely positively cannot die unless the player checks a box that says "I choose to risk death and gain the corresponding mechanical benefit." isn't going to get quantified as an RPG here.
It's possible to perform a coup de grace by the rules. The book tells the GM that doing it on PCs is poor form. But your above statement is not true, even if that wasn't an awfully arbitrary dividing line.
QuoteIf you can't see why, you are incapable of seeing that narrative breaking point, well, then dunno what to tell ya. Enjoy the never-ending threads about where it is and the passive-aggressive "Oh there's lots of meaningful gaming discussion to be had, IF ONLY..." statements.
Vulmea seems really bothered by it, so that's some entertainment in it I suppose.
Quote from: vytzka;677431It seems odd that I prefer to put effort in posting content and encouraging discussion in forums where I can expect majority of the audience to see it rather than just a part of it? Really? Because it doesn't to me and I don't do copypaste threads over all gaming forums I read like some people.
So for this to be a valid argument you must then be advocating on every forum you frequent that they simply have one forum where all topics go. You have a link anywhere in the internet where you have made that claim on other forums? No? Ok, so we're back to you're just butthurt.
Quote from: vytzka;677431I don't see why I should spend my own efforts to legitimize Pundit's political bullshit.
Thank you for verifying you see this as a political struggle.
Quote from: vytzka;677431It's possible to perform a coup de grace by the rules.
Make your case for the "Don't die box" not qualifying the game as a non-traditional rpg. Noone can say Pundit will never change his mind.
Quote from: vytzka;677431But your above statement is not true, even if that wasn't an awfully arbitrary dividing line.
If you were going to place a dividing line between games with mechanics I engage as a character and games with mechanics I engage as a player and a character, having a "Player says the character can't die box", would pretty much be the definition of the dividing line.
Quote from: CRKrueger;677442So for this to be a valid argument you must then be advocating on every forum you frequent that they simply have one forum where all topics go. You have a link anywhere in the internet where you have made that claim on other forums? No? Ok, so we're back to you're just butthurt.
What the fuck are you even on about? Valid argument? Talking about my own preferences? Here's a valid argument for you, cupcake: therpgsite is the only one non-system-specific RPG-centric forum I can think of that doesn't allow discussion of TBZ in general RPG-oriented space. I dunno what kind of gotcha you were trying to pull out of your ass but I think you'll need some more straw for this man.
QuoteThank you for verifying you see this as a political struggle.
It's political though I wish it wasn't, and I'm not the one who made it this way.
QuoteMake your case for the "Don't die box" not qualifying the game as a non-traditional rpg. Noone can say Pundit will never change his mind.
For me to do that, someone else should have presented a definition of storygames first, and showed that having a don't die box violates it. Then we could have a reasonable discussion. That was never done, so I don't feel it's productive of me to start proving negatives to windmills.
QuoteIf you were going to place a dividing line between games with mechanics I engage as a character and games with mechanics I engage as a player and a character, having a "Player says the character can't die box", would pretty much be the definition of the dividing line.
So every RPG that has a "Player says the character can't die box" is a storygame and every one that doesn't have it is a real RPG? That would be better than the lack of a definition we have, I agree, though it's still pretty arbitrary (as very few games seem to satisfy it).
Quote from: CRKrueger;677429[A]ny game where ... the character absolutely positively cannot die unless the player checks a box that says "I choose to risk death and gain the corresponding mechanical benefit." isn't going to get quantified as an RPG here.
I wouldn't be sure. Isn't it really dependent on whether that's an
in-character reality?
Consider:
Quote from: TristamEvans;676020[T]hey could however, if they were in a doctor's office ask " can I find a spare lab coat to wear as a disguise?" the GM may say yes, if the player is willing to spend a story point.
An Amberite might be able to decide that the magazine rack in a doctor's office should include a particular 1962 issue of
Galaxy Magazine -- and make it so!
James Bond can't do that; he's stuck with a magazine selection arranged by forces beyond his control. Ditto Superman, although he could go out and bring back a magazine with astounding quickness.
If a character were indeed immortal but by choice, then the choice would be no less role-playing than a D&D magician's choice of whether to become invisible or teleport.
What's worth dying for? That would be the key question!
I've said before that I would prefer different criteria than used here for storygame (SG) and role-playing game (RPG).
I would call AD&D Dragonlance Saga both SG (per the GM's job in that scenario) and RPG (from the player's perspective, at least as I recall).
It's a convenient metaphor to call an out-of-character perspective "authorial," but it is not necessarily the case that the player's objective is to tell a story. There is a common correlation nowadays, but it's not inherent.
My elementary school friends and I created a game that I would call neither SG nor RPG. There was an aspect in which we proposed universe-defining postulates to the GM, but we were not trying to tell a story. There was an aspect in which we played character roles, but that was not the primary focus. For any grognards out there, it was sort of like SPI's Outreach, but with a free-form approach similar to early D&D.
Based on the primary interest, I would call it a Grand Strategy Game with the "what if" elements not all pre-packaged but rather coming in part from the players' input.
Even excluding the intersecting axis -- from roles, but not RPG, to OOC but not SG -- there's a spectrum between the two extremes of RPG and SG.
It would be plain false advertising nowadays to represent an article at one extreme as just the thing for fans of the other. It would be like calling D&D a "tank game" or "Barsoom game" just because those subjects have occasionally featured. It's certainly not a "mecha game" in any sense that would satisfy Battletech fans!
In the middle, there's a frontier of what might as well be called "hybrid games."