Good day,
I'm new to this forum. Since arrival I have heard the use of the term "storytelling game," often preceded and followed by colorful adjectives. What exactly is a "storytelling game?" And why is it so disliked herein?
Cheers!
The forum has a search function for your needs.
Then you can read countless threads on this very subject without the need to add another (this one).
No offense, but we don't need another thread like this at the moment, so i'm closing it while you do your search thing.
As i received such a polite PM from the opening poster, i'm re-opening the thread - but it's moved to other games.
I take no responsibility for what follows in the next X pages.
Quote from: Andy Day;668265Good day,
I'm new to this forum. Since arrival I have heard the use of the term "storytelling game," often preceded and followed by colorful adjectives. What exactly is a "storytelling game?" And why is it so disliked herein?
Cheers!
For the purposes of this forum, it's sufficient to say that the term is used to describe stuff that falls outside the bounds of traditional RPGs, while not being part of some other clearly-defined genre (such as board games, CCGs, wargames, etc.) I'm afraid that might not help you discover what unique traits set storygames apart from all the other not-RPG tabletop games, but that's how things are here, since this forum is predominantly about traditional RPGs.
If you want better info on storygames themselves, there are dedicated forums about them that might be worth exploring.
Quote from: Andy Day;668265I'm new to this forum. Since arrival I have heard the use of the term "storytelling game," often preceded and followed by colorful adjectives. What exactly is a "storytelling game?" And why is it so disliked herein?
Roleplaying Games vs. Storytelling Games (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)
STGs feature narrative control mechanics: The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they’re actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk.
They're disliked here because:
(a) The owner of the site believes that there is a vast conspiracy of "swine" who are trying to destroy RPGs by getting people to play STGs.
(b) A significant percentage of the posters here are troglodytes who have stuck their heads up their own asses in an effort to catch a sniff of the nostalgia that's metastasizing inside of them. They're terrified of anything that didn't exist when they were 16 years old.
Having transformed the concept of "storytelling game" into a boogeyman, the most recent trend has been to take any RPG that does anything deemed "non-traditional" and declaring it to have failed a purity test. Unusual dice mechanic? You're an STG. Non-standard attribute breakdown? You're an STG. Player-faced mechanics? You're an STG.
Diceless games get a pass on this, however, because the site owner recently published a diceless RPG.
To answer the OP, youre going to get a lot of definitions of 'storygames' around here ( or anywhere online) , and find many varying ideas on whether a game being a 'storygame' means its not also an rpg. This is further complicated by the decisions of the Pundit as to which forum a game belongs in, often made without explanation and perhaps muddied by his 'war on swine'.
It all really started with James Wallis Adventures of Baron Munchausen rpg' by Hogshead publishing. Despite being titled an rpg, it actually was a round-table storytelling game that was written as an amusing parody of rpgs. Wallis himself admited it wasnt an actual rpg and somewhat tongue in cheek told Paul Mason he'd just called it that to 'get some money out of the d20 crowd'. Funny enough at the time. Meanwhile, online The now-defunct forum for game design 'The Forge' was strongly pushing the idea that all game systems should be hyper-focused on one style of play, and for somse of the forgeites that meant a game that was entirely narrative in nature, with players and the gm co-authors of a story.
Thus was born the storygsme movement. Perhaps the best (undisputable) exampl come from mWP: games like Smallville & Marvel Heroic. Storygames differ from traditional rpgs in two main ways: 1) instead of taking on the role of their character, the player takes on the role of that character's author. Almost all decisions made are from this omniscient 3rd person view. Granted, this can be done in almost any traditional rpg, but storygames enforce this metagame stance with the rules. 2) As the gm is viewed as a 'fellow collaborator', their respo sibilities as referee, judge, and world-creators are spread out among the players, so that instead of the rules being a tool for the gm to use, the gm is expected to follow the rules like a player, and their role is oftèn greatly diminished.
As to how any of this makes it 'not an rpg'...well, thats the cause of a lot of argu ents, especially in reaction to the more pretentious posters who feel they're entitled to define the hobby. And, while its very clear in cases like Smallville, that one is playing a radically different type of game than, say, D&D, there are many cases whère the divide isnt so clear, and for some posters its become more of a polîtical stance, based largèly on hipocrisy and ig orance (ie never actually playing the game), to declare games storygames based on their author and the author's friends.
Story games are games where the primary goal of the game is to generate collaborative fiction.
They most often feature player control of 'narrative' rather than that being the province of a single Games Master acting referee.
For this reason there are often strict rules confine what the Games Master can do, often measured by some form of token.
There is no single test that can determine if a game is like this or not, it is most often measured through the game's tone, content and advice given.
Many people do not enjoy this kind of play.
I think TE and jadrax are pretty bang on. :)
To continue, some of the problem comes from a few people that think point 2 itself is enough to define a game as a storygame, even when the game is otherwise not narrative in goals or structure, making the term a misleading and inacurate term for any game that takes away power from the gm. This ks further complicated by the fact that games have been using story and stories as a metaphor for explaining the activity of rpgs since AD&D. The first game to call itself a 'storytelling game', Princè Valiant, is in fact not a storygame buta trad rpg. In the 90s White Wolf took to calling their games 'storytelling games' ànd even waxed on pretentiously about narrative play, but the system itself (actually a combo of Prince Valiant and DC Heroes) was strictly a trad rpg.
Meanwhile, there have been a number of rpgs that try to restrict gm power, or assume the gm should be following rules like players, often created as a misguided attempt to 'protect players' from bad gms, but are otherwise trad rpgs, such as Burning Wheel or Agon. Even 4th ed D&D may fit ths description, depending on who one talks to. These, however, are erreneously called storygames by some, to the point 'story' as a descriptive term becomes as meaningless as the 'punk' in 'steampunk'.
Well said TE.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668329In the 90s White Wolf took to calling their games 'storytelling games' ànd even waxed on pretentiously about narrative play, but the system itself (actually a combo of Prince Valiant and DC Heroes) was strictly a trad rpg.
It's worth noting that the actual name of the system which White Wolf has been using for the new World of Darkness games since 2004 is "Storytelling", so that's what
their fans are likely to mean by the term.
"We call the game you hold in your hands a Storytelling game, because it's an opportunity for you to participate in the deeply human endeavor of telling stories." --from
The World of Darkness, page 17.
Quote from: One Horse Town;668303As i received such a polite PM from the opening poster, i'm re-opening the thread
Good show!
It should be pointed out the the first people to differentiate story games and RPGs were story game fans and authors.
The whole pretense that they're just the same and we're all old fuddy duddys for not liking them is new.
Quote from: Piestrio;668369It should be pointed out the the first people to differentiate story games and RPGs were story game fans and authors.
The whole pretense that they're just the same and we're all old fuddy duddys for not liking them is new.
I think the newer premise came about when old fuddy-duddies started calling any rpg they didnt like a 'storygame', so that in many cases you could replace the word storygame with 'newfangled'.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668371I think the newer premise came about when old fuddy-duddies started calling any rpg they didnt like a 'storygame', so that in many cases you could replace the word storygame with 'newfangled'.
Obviously (at least it should be obvious), new games are going to arise from older games. RPGs were a bastard form of wargames, and story games are a bastard form of RPGs. At least to hear the grognards talk about it. That new kid D&D was NOT an Avalon Hill simulation of The Battle of the Bulge, and thus an inferior waste of time.
While I don't necessarily like story games, they're certainly a valid form of spending time if you enjoy them. My main issue with the whole "shared narrative" aspect is simply that it doesn't really seem like a game anymore, and is more closely related to swapping stories around a campfire. Oddly enough, it's a far older form of entertainment than RPGs, wargames, or pretty much anything else.
So my real question is, why do I need 400 pages of rules to explain how to play "let's tell a story together"? If you're going to use that level of detail, aren't you really taking something away from the most important part of the game: the narrative aspect?
The ass-bustingly, pants-shittingly hilarious part of this ALL is that "Role Playing Game" was a term somebody pulled out of their ass to label D&D and other similar games in the late 70s. D&D called itself a "fantastic medieval wargames campaign." They were called "skirmish games" and then "adventure games" and then somebody dreamed up "role playing games" and everybody went "yeah, sounds good."
There IS no fucking rigorous definition of RPGs, so to declare something "not an RPG" is meaningless.
It's like the "Society for Creative Anachronism." Karen Anderson was reserving a park for her friends to have a mock tournament and the park asked her for the name of the group, and she said "Err... Society for Creative Anachronism." She made it up on the fucking spot.
Just like "role playing game."
Just to add to the complexity, early on, the term story-games was used to include RPGs and games that had earned the ire of RPG players for the reasons above. The term was inclusive of RPGs rather than something different from RPGs. From what I understand, it was a reaction to the arguments about "what is an RPG" from people who just wanted to play games. Over time, it appears that, for many, the term has come to refer exclusively to games that feature means by which players are able to directly effect the fictional world other than through their characters.
Quote from: Old Geezer;668375The ass-bustingly, pants-shittingly hilarious part of this ALL is that "Role Playing Game" was a term somebody pulled out of their ass to label D&D and other similar games in the late 70s.
Heavy metal music was named after a random line in Born To Be Wild. The NWO was something Hulk Hogan made up on the spot during a live interview. Led Zeppelin was named due to an offhand derogatory remark. Nothing worthwhile is planned with rigor...look at internet memes. It's completely random which ones are popular, and trying to manufacture them is impossible. Welcome to real life.
Also, some people who like roleplaying games prefer to explore the world, not build it, and effect change in a setting through their character, not as an author.
Yeah, hard to believe I know, but some people aren't Crusaders, or Delusional, or Dinosaurs, they just don't like narrative control mechanics, or any type of player-faced, OOC metagame mechanics when they roleplay.
No one is 100% happy with the way Pundit classifies games and defines forums, except Pundit.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668384Also, some people who like roleplaying games prefer to explore the world, not build it, and effect change in a setting through their character, not as an author.
Also, some people who like roleplaying games sometimes prefer to effect change in a setting through their character and at other times as an author. And maybe even both at different times in the same game.
Though people will often form a preference one way or the other, that preference isn't necessarily exclusive of the other.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668384Also, some people who like roleplaying games prefer to explore the world, not build it, and effect change in a setting through their character, not as an author.
Yeah, hard to believe I know, but some people aren't Crusaders, or Delusional, or Dinosaurs, they just don't like narrative control mechanics, or any type of player-faced, OOC metagame mechanics when they roleplay.
No one is 100% happy with the way Pundit classifies games and defines forums, except Pundit.
That's how I like to play, also with a free hand regarding rules. That said, I'm an equal opportunity Stealer of any nifty game mechanic I like and works for my group, so I'll read just about any game that comes my way, and I don't particularly care what games other people play, whether its dinosaur monopoly or fairy chess or the Rocky & Bullwinkle RPG/parlour game. Nor do I place any credence on the belief that there's a supersecret cadre of narrative roleplayers out to destroy the hobby.
I do especially get crankie when games that ten years ago no one would have batted an eye at calling an RPG are retroactively labelled a 'storygame' with the implication it bears some culpability in the story telling suidae conspiracy.
CRK's observations in another thread has me thinking about this some more.
It seems more obvious that what has happened here is that a group of new games, story-games, initially caused offense a few years ago. I think that this was a relatively well understood sentiment. However, in order to try and separate the offending group beyond any argument, it saw every RPG that led to that group or is somehow related to that group also being separated, even if its not part of that group. Much like cutting away healthy tissue around a tumour due to its proximity, rather than it being tumorous.
The problem is that this collateral separation is being done inconsistently as the reason for the separation doesn't readily apply to them and the sentiment is less well understood. This result will be that "RPGs" end up, for a good number of people, being a lesser subset of its previous self.
Quote from: Skywalker;668392CRK's observations in another thread has me thinking about this some more.
It seems more obvious that what has happened here is that a group of new games, story-games, initially caused offense a few years ago. I think that this was a relatively well understood sentiment. However, in order to try and separate the offending group beyond any argument, it saw every RPG that led to that group or is somehow related to that group also being separated, even if its not part of that group. Much like cutting away healthy tissue around a tumour due to its proximity, rather than it being tumorous.
The problem is that this collateral separation is being done inconsistently as the reason for the separation doesn't readily apply to them and the sentiment is less well understood. This result will be that "RPGs" end up, for a good number of people, being a lesser subset of its previous self.
Hole in one you've got there, I think.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668384Also, some people who like roleplaying games prefer to explore the world, not build it, and effect change in a setting through their character, not as an author.
That seems to be a straightforward separation. A player has control over their character ONLY. Anything outside of that places it in the Other Games forum.
Does it really matter what it is called or how people view it?
Quote from: TristramEvans;668388I do especially get crankie when games that ten years ago no one would have batted an eye at calling an RPG are retroactively labelled a 'storygame' with the implication it bears some culpability in the story telling suidae conspiracy.
Such as?
Quote from: TristramEvans;668394Hole in one you've got there, I think.
The weird thing is that nearly everyone arguing on this side of the fence actually doesn't like story-games either. They just don't agree with "RPGs" being limited to simulation RPGs, where mechanics are nearly all presented from an IC perspective.
As such, this whole thing is a bunch of RPGers fighting amongst themselves, with one half trying to legitimise the RPGing they have been doing for the last 30 years. :)
Quote from: Piestrio;668396Such as?
The One Ring springs to mind.
Quote from: Skywalker;668399The One Ring springs to mind.
That's not what "retroactive" means.
P.S. and there one ring isn't a story-game, its just s shitty game.
Quote from: Skywalker;668399The One Ring springs to mind.
All The One Ring threads appear to be in the main (RPG) forum (as of this writing).
Quote from: Rum Cove;668395That seems to be a straightforward separation. A player has control over their character ONLY. Anything outside of that places it in the Other Games forum.
That is a clear separation, but the problem is its not the separation being implemented. Any RPG with a Karma/Fate/Bennie system still goes into the main forum. There has been handwaving over the concept of "genre" mechanics as being IC mechanics too.
Hell, FATE gets a pass and its one of the few RPGs I actually dislike for giving the players too much of an authorial perspective.
Quote from: Skywalker;668392CRK's observations in another thread has me thinking about this some more.
It seems more obvious that what has happened here is that a group of new games, story-games, initially caused offense a few years ago. I think that this was a relatively well understood sentiment. However, in order to try and separate the offending group beyond any argument, it saw every RPG that led to that group or is somehow related to that group also being separated, even if its not part of that group. Much like cutting away healthy tissue around a tumour due to its proximity, rather than it being tumorous.
The problem is that this collateral separation is being done inconsistently as the reason for the separation doesn't readily apply to them and the sentiment is less well understood. This result will be that "RPGs" end up, for a good number of people, being a lesser subset of its previous self.
I don't think Storygames caused offense, I think a certain group of people caused offense. This site was set up in response to that offense. Pundit's motives are not necessarily mine.
I don't hold any antipathy towards Vince Baker. I think he's got some fairly obvious issues, but who doesn't. I think he is a good game designer, however, the games he designs are not those in which I can play and get what I want out of roleplaying.
You say all of narrative games get lumped in with Edwards, well anyone who doesn't prefer narrative mechanics gets lumped in with Pundit.
It seems like there is a fear of accepting a distinction between games that have OOC narrative control mechanics and those that do not because once that distinction is accepted it will...what? Grant victory to Pundit? Lead to a Pogrom? I don't get the fear, but it's there and leads otherwise rational posters to respond with a lot of venom to simple discussions of term definitions.
There's such a backlog of anger and vitriol around the topic it's hard to get at it without starting a war, especially since both sides have their terrorists throwing bombs.
Quote from: Piestrio;668401That's not what "retroactive" means.
They did retroactively label bands "Emo" in the late '90s, but that applies to music.
Quote from: Rum Cove;668402All The One Ring threads appear to be in the main (RPG) forum (as of this writing).
I haven't seen one for a long while and the mods stated that it was not viewed as a traditional RPG.
Quote from: Rum Cove;668395That seems to be a straightforward separation. A player has control over their character ONLY. Anything outside of that places it in the Other
I'd be fine with that division.
Quote from: Piestrio;668401That's not what "retroactive" means.
If The One Ring came out in 2003, it would not have been called a story-game. That's the retroactive element.
Quote from: Skywalker;668408If The One Ring came out in 2003, it would not have been called a story-game. That's the retroactive element.
That's an odd definition.
EDIT: And either way its not called a "story game" by most folks or here in Amy 'official' manner.
Quote from: Skywalker;668406I haven't seen one for a long while and the mods stated that it was not viewed as a traditional RPG.
What was the offending mechanic(s)?
I say, post anywhere and give the mods headaches in cleaning it up if they want to be juvenile about it all.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668404I don't think Storygames caused offense, I think a certain group of people caused offense. This site was set up in response to that offense. Pundit's motives are not necessarily mine.
I agree that designers and fans of story-games caused offence, and it is important context for what is happening here. However, I think there was a genuinely large number of RPGers who struggled and didn't like the approach story-games take as well.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668404You say all of narrative games get lumped in with Edwards, well anyone who doesn't prefer narrative mechanics gets lumped in with Pundit.
I honestly don't think that is the case. But it if is, then I agree that its wrong.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668404It seems like there is a fear of accepting a distinction between games that have OOC narrative control mechanics and those that do not because once that distinction is accepted it will...what?
Is Pundit accepting that distinction though? Should FATE be considered game without OOC narrative control mechanics?
As people have said, if the distinction was consistent and clear (and avoided the inflammatory language distortion), there would be much less issue. At this moment, its not.
Bring on a Simulation RPG forum, Narrative RPG forum and a Tactical RPG forum. :)
Quote from: Piestrio;668396Such as?
Car wars is the first example to come to mind.
Quote from: Rum Cove;668411What was the offending mechanic(s)?
I honestly don't know. I am guessing the way the asymmetrical tactical elements in the combat system engage the player on some level or, maybe, the trait system.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668413Car wars is the first example to come to mind.
Car wars is an RPG?
Car wars is a story game?
What?
Quote from: Andy Day;668265Good day,
I'm new to this forum. Since arrival I have heard the use of the term "storytelling game," often preceded and followed by colorful adjectives. What exactly is a "storytelling game?" And why is it so disliked herein?
Cheers!
There are lots of mechanics in 'games'.
Some of these mechanics give the player control over the environment/story. So a mechanic that lets the player introduce an NPC ally into a scene, or allows the PC to know more about the location or to find something in the locational the party find themselves.
These mechanics can be labelled 'storygame Mechanics' or 'narrative mechnics'. They are generally pretty clear an unambiguous because they alter the game world beyond the skill of the PC in character. They are in effect an Out of Character Effects.
Now the tricky bit. Lots of games use these mechanics, from character generation options that let you set allies, to hero points that let you find a clue or reroll a failure to allowing you to state what the effect of your failed skill attempt was. Some use a lot and some use very few. They have been about nearly as long as there have been RPGs.
The question is, is there a line after which an RPG becomes a StoryGame because it has a preponderance of these mechanics? The Answer is probably yes but where that line precisely sits is contentious and some with an almost religious aspect to some folks on this site. The concept of how much shit does there have to be in your sandwich for it to be considered a shit sandwich has been mooted. The usual answer is actually more often 'as much shit as I think is acceptable but you have to agree with me or you are a
' as opposed to 'none'.
Same is true of Tactical combat rules that push a game from RPG towards tactical skirmish territory but since the demise of 4e that has gotten less attention here and rpgs with lots of tactical combat rules were never pushed to the Othergames ghetto, though car wars would end up there because it has zero RPG mechanics at all.
Quote from: Piestrio;668416Car wars is an RPG?
Car wars is a story game?
What?
Car Wars started in 80 as a tactical mini-game supplement for rpgs about a post-apocalyptic future where players played the drivers of souped-up battle vehicles Ala Death Race 5000. The setting was later developed into an RPG by Steve Jackson games, and car wars became autoduel for a short time, getting a few GURPs-like source books before its popularity waned in the 90s. Pundit has since shunted it off to 'other games' presumably in response to me pointing out that the game was similar in respects to of&d, in that it focuses its rules on the combat elements and role playing is handled free form.
Quote from: Brad;668374So my real question is, why do I need 400 pages of rules to explain how to play "let's tell a story together"? If you're going to use that level of detail, aren't you really taking something away from the most important part of the game: the narrative aspect?
I'm not sure which game you're discussing?
Quote from: TristramEvans;668421Pundit has since shunted it off to 'other games' presumably in response to me pointing out that the game was similar in respects to of&d, in that it focuses its rules on the combat elements and role playing is handled free form.
That says more about the RPGPundit than it does the game.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668421Car Wars started in 80 as a tactical mini-game supplement for rpgs about a post-apocalyptic future where players played the drivers of souped-up battle vehicles Ala Death Race 5000. The setting was later developed into an RPG by Steve Jackson games, and car wars became autoduel for a short time, getting a few GURPs-like source books before its popularity waned in the 90s. Pundit has since shunted it off to 'other games' presumably in response to me pointing out that the game was similar in respects to of&d, in that it focuses its rules on the combat elements and role playing is handled free form.
I've never known anyone who thought Car Wars was an RPG. Interesting.
(or a story-game for that matter)
It's a bit like learning that some people are fighting about whether a Bic Mac is a hot dog or a jumbo jet.
Quote from: Brad;668374So my real question is, why do I need 400 pages of rules to explain how to play "let's tell a story together"? If you're going to use that level of detail, aren't you really taking something away from the most important part of the game: the narrative aspect?
Yes, if you use that level of detail, you're taking some narrative control away. I see that as a good thing. I enjoy free-form group storytelling for very short periods of time with my kids or with people outside the hobby, but when it's serious gaming time, I absolutely don't want players to have a lot of narrative control.
Quote from: Piestrio;668424I've never known anyone who thought Car Wars was an RPG. Interesting.
(or a story-game for that matter)
It's a bit like learning that some people are fighting about whether a Bic Mac is a hot dog or a jumbo jet.
It features a skill system, experience system, combat &injury rules, chargen and published scenario modules. Frankly its more of an RPG that white box d&d and boot hill combined. Moreover, I've never encountered anyone who didn't play it as an RPG from the time I started playing in 85 to the present.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668428It features a skill system, experience system, combat &injury rules, chargen and published scenario modules. Frankly its more of an RPG that white box d&d and boot hill combined. Moreover, I've never encountered anyone who didn't play it as an RPG from the time I started playing in 85 to the present.
Huh...
(http://blog.hughandcrye.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TheMoreYouKnowLogo.jpg)
Quote from: Rum Cove;668411What was the offending mechanic(s)?
I say, post anywhere and give the mods headaches in cleaning it up if they want to be juvenile about it all.
Well, now you've gone and done it. You've forced me to come post here.
How's this then? If anytime in the next while someone appears to follow your instructions, not only will they be banned for disrupting the site, so will you, for inciting that disruption.
If you believe in this so strongly, go ahead and post it yourself, rather than hoping other people will do your dirty work for you thinking you'll avoid punishment.
Seriously, what kind of fucking slimebag are you?
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skywalker;668412Bring on a Simulation RPG forum, Narrative RPG forum and a Tactical RPG forum. :)
No, see, here we recognize that Forge Theory is a failed and worthless invention.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668434No, see, here we recognize that Forge Theory is a failed and worthless invention.
At least we agree on something. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;668433How's this then? If anytime in the next while someone appears to follow your instructions, not only will they be banned for disrupting the site, so will you, for inciting that disruption.
So, if someone posts about an RPG in the wrong forum here, which may well likely be innocent given the way the separation is implemented here, and also potentially without knowledge of this post buried away in a single thread in the Other Games Forum, RumCove gets a ban too? Really? :confused:
Quote from: Skywalker;668454So, if someone posts about an RPG in the wrong forum here, which may well likely be innocent given the way the separation is implemented here, and also potentially without knowledge of this post buried away in a single thread in the Other Games Forum, RumCove gets a ban too? Really? :confused:
FFS; Posting 'to give mod's headaches' is not 'likely to be innocent'.
I don't like to say i told you so, but...
Quote from: jadrax;668459FFS; Posting 'to give mod's headaches' is not 'likely to be innocent'.
I was referring to the posting in the wrong forum half of what Rum Cove said, to which Pundit was referring to, as there is no objective way of knowing what gives the mods headaches. That is may well be done innocently.
Quote from: Skywalker;668464I was referring to the posting in the wrong forum half of what Rum Cove said, to which Pundit was referring to, as there is no objective way of knowing what gives the mods headaches. That is may well be done innocently.
FFS.
this is not fucking rocket science.
Black Cove basically posted 'I hate the fucking rules any everyone should ignore them'.
Pundit posted 'Do that shot and you are banned'
You posted 'Waahhhh! oppression.'
Fucking stop it. It makes you look like a disingenuous cunt.
Quote from: jadrax;668465Pundit posted 'Do that shot and you are banned'
No. The post was if anyone else appears to be do that, you are banned.
I take no issue with warning Rum Cove not to break forum rules or ignore mod warnings, and banning him if he does so. But banning him for a potentially unrelated incident involving someone else is just poor.
Quote from: Skywalker;668468But banning him for a potentially unrelated incident involving someone else is just poor.
Well that I agree on, as I would have banned him as soon as I read the incitement.
I imagine Pundit means if any of the (pardon the term) usual suspects start a thread they know should be elsewhere. It's not too difficult to determine.
I originally closed this thread because i knew it would devolve into this. Andy Day may well have been all innocent in what would follow for all i know (he is fairly new), but after being called "a piece of work" by him via PM for closing it, i thought what the fuck, i pulled the trigger too soon and i'm sure it'll be great!
Wrong, wrong and wrong i was. It's been turned into the usual fighting ground when this crops up.
Well, Andy, you've got some answers to your question - the rest is the circle of hell J Arcane mentioned when this subject comes up.
Quote from: Skywalker;668454So, if someone posts about an RPG in the wrong forum here, which may well likely be innocent given the way the separation is implemented here, and also potentially without knowledge of this post buried away in a single thread in the Other Games Forum, RumCove gets a ban too? Really? :confused:
Yes.
Because we don't want to encourage an environment of tangency.net-like bullshit where people try to circumvent the few rules we have while manipulating others into getting banned for them. He wants to tell people to commit acts of terrorism? Fine. He now lives with the consequence that we will assume any such act committed was done on his suggestion.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skywalker;668468No. The post was if anyone else appears to be do that, you are banned.
I take no issue with warning Rum Cove not to break forum rules or ignore mod warnings, and banning him if he does so. But banning him for a potentially unrelated incident involving someone else is just poor.
I'll go one further too: if he makes such a suggestion again, he will be banned. Because incitement to site disruption is in essence site disruption.
In fact, it LITERALLY is site disruption. He's already "disrupted" the functioning of this site by obliging me to come and post here.
RPGPundit
Quote from: One Horse Town;668471I imagine Pundit means if any of the (pardon the term) usual suspects start a thread they know should be elsewhere. It's not too difficult to determine.
I originally closed this thread because i knew it would devolve into this. Andy Day may well have been all innocent in what would follow for all i know (he is fairly new), but after being called "a piece of work" by him via PM for closing it, i thought what the fuck, i pulled the trigger too soon and i'm sure it'll be great!
Wrong, wrong and wrong i was. It's been turned into the usual fighting ground when this crops up.
Well, Andy, you've got some answers to your question - the rest is the circle of hell J Arcane mentioned when this subject comes up.
Agreed. And since the subject was "what are Storytelling games" and not "should storytelling games belong in the main forum of the RPG site", continuing to turn this thread into the latter will result in its closure.
And in future, if people post threads about Dungeon World, TBZ, AW, Dogs in the Vinjyard, Maid, Poison'd, or any of the other storygames and someone comes into those threads derailing them by changing the conversation to "They should be on the main forum", that act will be considered thread-derailment, which I remind everyone is site disruption.
Of course, no one is saying you can't start a thread, in the correct forum, about how you think storygames or a specific storygame should for some reason belong in the main RPG forum, and if the thread is specifically about that, its allowed. I just want to protect the poor storygamers' right to freely talk about their love of dungeon world or anything else on here without having people hijacking their threads. I'm a humanitarian that way.
Now, let's get back to the original topic, shall we? So I can get out of here?
RPGPundit
I'm thinking about borderline cases (or at least, as I understand the border).
So, I'm envisioning a game that supports player immersion in their characters by giving the player control only over their character's unconstrained choices and mental state. You can author elements beyond your character, but only before play starts (e.g your character background); thereafter you have no other narrative control other than to speak as your character or say what you're doing.
The GM translates all of your intentions into actions (allowing them if they're unopposed or too easy to bother testing, like walking; disallowing them if they're impossible, and rolling dice or asking further questions the rest of the time).
On the other side of the screen, however, the GM is explicitly choosing events for narrative reasons. He is predominantly concerned with 'pacing' events with an eye to how that fits into the session; by what seems fitting or dramatic. World events and NPC reactions have to pass a basic plausibility test, but the higher-priority concern is ensuring the PCs (in particular) are encountering interesting things, have a mix of opposition and support that suits the GM, and so on. The GM happily rewrites or reshapes content that hasn't been revealed yet to suit these ends (e.g. tweaking the villain's secret goal to add one last twist to fuel a final arc).
The GM is free to add/modify/ignore any rules he likes, so his decision to run the game this way behind the scenes may be supported by rules, guidelines and suggestions (e.g. with quantitative counters, or checklists), or it might be his own creation or play style in the absence of any guidance from the game text.
How do you see a game like this?
Quote from: RPGPundit;668536And in future, if people post threads about Dungeon World, TBZ, AW, Dogs in the Vinjyard, Maid, Poison'd, or any of the other storygames and someone comes into those threads derailing them by changing the conversation to "They should be on the main forum", that act will be considered thread-derailment, which I remind everyone is site disruption.
Out of curiosity, what's the reason for putting
Maid into the "storygame" category? Because it allows the players too to trigger random event rolls instead of just the GM? And if that's the case, then where do, say, the perversity points in
Paranoia fit in?
Quote from: RPGPundit;668534He wants to tell people to commit acts of terrorism?
You should be ashamed for using that word in this context.
Quote from: Rum Cove;668562You should be ashamed for using that word in this context.
When we compare RPG.net to USSR, you must have regular Pearl Clutching Syndrome then.
Quote from: One Horse Town;668460I don't like to say i told you so, but...
How do you humans say it? Getting jiggy with it?
*coughs*
This escalated quickly?
"Acts of terrorism"? Jesus f-ing Christmas. I need a new forum. This place just went full on retarded.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668534Because we don't want to encourage an environment of tangency.net-like bullshit where people try to circumvent the few rules we have while manipulating others into getting banned for them. He wants to tell people to commit acts of terrorism
I love how on this site someone saying that RPGs can be a kind of art is overblown pretentiousness of the highest order, but posting things in the wrong subforum is literally terrorism.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668404It seems like there is a fear of accepting a distinction between games that have OOC narrative control mechanics and those that do not because once that distinction is accepted it will...what? Grant victory to Pundit? Lead to a Pogrom? I don't get the fear, but it's there and leads otherwise rational posters to respond with a lot of venom to simple discussions of term definitions.
It is extremely disingenuous to redefine the term RPG to exclude all the games you don't like, and then turn round and accuse the people who like the RPGs that have been excluded as playing word games motivated by fear.
That enemy you're looking at is in fact a mirror.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668586"Acts of terrorism"? Jesus f-ing Christmas. I need a new forum.
Just make a few more socks at RPGnet, that ought to do it. ;)
Quote from: TristramEvans;668586"Acts of terrorism"? Jesus f-ing Christmas. I need a new forum. This place just went full on retarded.
You're making a hyperbole out of a hyperbole. While I disagree with Pundit on many accounts (though I still reluctantly agree that Foul Ole Ron did try to subvert the concept of RPG to turn it into something that's not quite an RPG anymore), we've all been throwing overblown and out of place remarks and insults. Let's not get our panties in a twist because Big Bad Admin Jerk did it.
Obviously Pundit is being stupid comparing site disruption to terrorism. Just as stupid as we/I am when I compare RPG.net to USSR. But hey, metaphores - sometimes they are like balloons to convey a point.
On the Hyperboles, we're having a regular Arab Spring in here. Though I thought pork was haram (ohohoho).
Quote from: One Horse Town;668598Just make a few more socks at RPGnet, that ought to do it. ;)
And I was nice enough to point out the only sock I used there when I got permabanned. Guess the mods don't want to believe I could quit them. Feel sorry for the poor posters they decided must be me, although Ive heard they had to offer retractions on a few of those.
Anyhow, Pundit can be as crazy paranoid about Swine as he likes, but I still think the assumption that everything he consider a story game 'goes without saying' to be a disengenuos trap. But hey, rather than bitch about it I think I'll start another thread.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668612And I was nice enough to point out the only sock I used there when I got permabanned. Guess the mods don't want to believe I could quit them. Feel sorry for the poor posters they decided must be me, although Ive heard they had to offer retractions on a few of those.
Anyhow, Pundit can be as crazy paranoid about Swine as he likes, but I still think the assumption that everything he consider a story game 'goes without saying' to be a disengenuos trap. But hey, rather than bitch about it I think I'll start another thread.
You got bann'd? Didn't hear about that. I assume it was for talking like a real man/woman rather than pacified rug, so have your obligatory medal:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Order_of_Lenin_type4.jpg/200px-Order_of_Lenin_type4.jpg)
I'm with Tristram here, too, bu want to add a little:
Pundit, the owner of the forum, admits that White Wolf's storytelling games isn't Storygames, but rpg's, but he tend to call those who play them" as he thinks they are to be played" "swine" anyway, because he thinks those games are pretentious pieces of shit.
I like WW's "Storytelling Games", and agree that they can be played in very pretentious ways, but i do not agree on the "shit" part.
Interesting point: opposing opinions are normally allowed.
Another interesting point: Pundit usually seem to satisfy with "Swine" for the WW-games, and call the Storygames and Storygamers often worse things ... i think ...
That is my impression, at least.
Quote from: Rincewind1;668604You're making a hyperbole out of a hyperbole. While I disagree with Pundit on many accounts (though I still reluctantly agree that Foul Ole Ron did try to subvert the concept of RPG to turn it into something that's not quite an RPG anymore), we've all been throwing overblown and out of place remarks and insults. Let's not get our panties in a twist because Big Bad Admin Jerk did i
Obviously Pundit is being stupid comparing site disruption to terrorism. Just as stupid as we/I am when I compare RPG.net to USSR. But hey, metaphores - sometimes they are like balloons to convey a point.
On the Hyperboles, we're having a regular Arab Spring in here. Though I thought pork was haram (ohohoho).
I stand by my assertion that its a full on retarded 'metaphor', along with his references to the OSR taliban. Calling the rpgnet mods facist isn't actually so far from the reality of the situation as parallels can be drawn. Calling posting in the wrong forum 'terrorism reveals more about the issues of the person saying it than the act of trolling,assumming that's what it is. Seriously, its like saying people biking on the sidewalk (technically illegal but uninforced in most cities in America) are committing acts of terrorism against, as pedestrians. It gets worse when you consider that the primary definition of 'swine' offered here are gamers who are pretentious and don't recognize its 'just a game'.
... What happened, i thought it was just 7 replies when i posted my above reply, but now it is 8 pages?! ...
Eff, my comment above is so out of context now ...
Quote from: TristramEvans;668620I stand by my assertion that its a full on retarded 'metaphor', along with his references to the OSR taliban. Calling the rpgnet mods facist isn't actually so far from the reality of the situation as parallels can be drawn. Calling posting in the wrong forum 'terrorism reveals more about the issues of the person saying it than the act of trolling,assumming that's what it is. Seriously, its like saying people biking on the sidewalk (technically illegal but uninforced in most cities in America) are committing acts of terrorism against, as pedestrians. It gets worse when you consider that the primary definition of 'swine' offered here are gamers who are pretentious and don't recognize its 'just a game'.
Quote from: Rincewind1;668614You got bann'd? Didn't hear about that. I assume it was for talking like a real man/woman rather than pacified rug, so have your obligatory medal:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Order_of_Lenin_type4.jpg/200px-Order_of_Lenin_type4.jpg)
I feel validated. :)
Quote from: soviet;668597That enemy you're looking at is in fact a mirror.
He who fights with swine must take care, lest he also become swine. For when you gaze into The Forge, The Forge also gazes into you.
Quote from: TristramEvans;668586"Acts of terrorism"? Jesus f-ing Christmas. I need a new forum. This place just went full on retarded.
And I was called to order by mod for using the term "segregation" (which I admitted was inappropriate) :confused:
So back to topic, and I can make a new thread if need-be, but are character backstories 'story gaming' by the loose definition? They frequently contain one or more of:
New places on the map
New people
Events major and minor
Etc
All of these things are beyond the power of the player, and they're usually encouraged.
I do preemptively concede the "with the GMs approval" point, but as a 'red line' isn't there still an issue here?
Quote from: mcbobbo;668657I do preemptively concede the "with the GMs approval" point, but as a 'red line' isn't there still an issue here?
Character creation is metagame (in that it takes place outside the considerations of the game world) pretty much regardless. The usual break point for these things (from what I can tell) is OOC decisions during or within gameplay.
Quote from: daniel_ream;668632He who fights with swine must take care, lest he also become swine. For when you gaze into The Forge, The Forge also gazes into you.
Hmm. Sounds a bit author stance to me. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the storygaming party?
Quote from: TristramEvans;668329In the 90s White Wolf took to calling their games 'storytelling games' ànd even waxed on pretentiously about narrative play, but the system itself (actually a combo of Prince Valiant and DC Heroes) was strictly a trad rpg.
Is that a supposition based on mechanics common to the white wolf system and DC Heroes/Prince Valiant? Or is there a known historical connection between these?
Quote from: TristramEvans;668586"Acts of terrorism"? Jesus f-ing Christmas. I need a new forum. This place just went full on retarded.
This is rich coming from the "The Big Bang is blackface for geeks" guy :rolleyes:
Quote from: daniel_ream;668632He who fights with swine must take care, lest he also become swine. For when you gaze into The Forge, The Forge also gazes into you.
I'm gonna do the possibly unneccesary thing here, and defend Pundit's stance ... or rather, explain it, despite me disagreeing with him.
He knows fully well that he is off, that he shows extreme opinions, but i do not think it is his opinions, he just takes that stance to be a counterweight to the extremeists that he has seen within WW's storytelling, and the even worse extremeists that he has seen infesting the Forge.
I do not know his actual opinions, and i disagree with the method, but he has displayed some good reasoning for why he does so.
But, yes, he should take care, so to not lose himself in the mirrorring.
Quote from: Piestrio;668713This is rich coming from the "The Big Bang is blackface for geeks" guy :rolleyes:
That's not even an exaggeration.
My advice was for new posters or anyone genuinely confused. I shouldn't be surprised that the moderators would twist it towards their own agenda. Are they really that out of touch with reality?
Please just remove my account (ban it if necessary), as I'm embarrassed to be a part of this site.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668697Is that a supposition based on mechanics common to the white wolf system and DC Heroes/Prince Valiant? Or is there a known historical connection between these?
The same connection one would make between Lady Blackbird and The Pool/Shadow of Yesterday. It very simply uses the exact same resolution mechanic as PV, with d10s substituted for coins, including the same attribute +skill= pool formula that originated in PV and whence WW, became almost ubiquitous in 90s game design. The attributes, otoh, were clearly modelled on the 3x3 grid of attributes in DC heroes, made even more explicit in nWoD's system revision. These are influences among many (presentation swiped from Fasa's Earthdawn and Shadowrun 2e) that I've simply noticed during the course of my involvement in the hobby. Its not a criticism, more of an acknowledgemeñt. That's the nature of our rather incestuous hobby: each new system is built of parts and înnovations of earlier games, each time fleshed out a bit further (the evolution of VG's 007: James bong RPG to MSH to Icons and the new Doctor Who respectively is one I find rather fascinating).
Quote from: TristramEvans;669387The same connection one would make between Lady Blackbird and The Pool/Shadow of Yesterday. It very simply uses the exact same resolution mechanic as PV, with d10s substituted for coins, including the same attribute +skill= pool formula that originated in PV and whence WW, became almost ubiquitous in 90s game design. The attributes, otoh, were clearly modelled on the 3x3 grid of attributes in DC heroes, made even more explicit in nWoD's system revision. These are influences among many (presentation swiped from Fasa's Earthdawn and Shadowrun 2e) that I've simply noticed during the course of my involvement in the hobby. Its not a criticism, more of an acknowledgemeñt. That's the nature of our rather incestuous hobby: each new system is built of parts and înnovations of earlier games, each time fleshed out a bit further (the evolution of VG's 007: James bong RPG to MSH to Icons and the new Doctor Who respectively is one I find rather fascinating).
OK- thanks. Interesting since I don't have any familiarity with Valiant (though I suspect you're right as to dice pools being from there). I'm asking mostly because otoh you also see ideas get re-invented separately (parallel evolution) - so I usually reserve judgement as to whether there's a definite influence.
In DC Heroes you see the same idea (the 3x3 grid), but used differently (DC mechanics clearly specify whether you should use the acting or effect or whatever attribute on the table, whereas WW mostly uses the physical/mental/social split in chargen, to limit how much certain stats can be bought up).
Thank you moderator man for putting this post up. Though I am sorry for opening an old wound.
Your communal feedback is appreciated. I now think I understand the storygame issue, at least here on this forum. That helps put a lot of other posts into proper context. Thanks!
P.S. I sort of like some story games.
In which case, closed (again).