I played World of Dew / Sound of Water at Gen Con.

Whilst I think these distinctions are ridiculous (at most there is a spectrum), highly divisive, and not even that helpful, if you must have the moniker "Storygames" I would think that this game product would fit.

We had pre-generated PCs, the GM had a plot structure and key NPCs established in advance.

The game required (and aided) us to develop strong narrative IC links between all the characters. We also developed the town and other NPCs, both at start-up and during the game.

We could affect the direction of the game and the plot both narratively and mechanically. The referee could mess around (or reward) us in the same way.

In most standard games that wouldn't happen, the world and everything in it would be controlled by the DM, mostly prepped in advance.


I love them both, variety is the spice of life etc.

Quote from: CRKrueger;911318So "Storygames are games for people who chase story" isn't going to work for me.  It teases at the core of the issue, namely the player is looking for an experience to create and be in a story, not immerse into a character (or ONLY immerse into a character) but doesn't tell the whole story (pun intended, smack me later), and in the end, the way is game is going to meet that player's goals is through mechanical reinforcement, so we're going to end up having to go back to the game mechanics anyway to determine the form that mechanical inforcement takes.  It's probably easier to start there.

The problem is that... not all Storygames actually enforce this through what you would call mechanics. Some games, nominally the simplest ones, do it through color, or other non-rules-related or even non-procedure-related means. Example: Amidst Endless Quiet. And I have seen several other minigames do something similar. They do not have mechanics that can be categorised as "enforcing this or that", yet they do produce a predictable game experience. This is why I am dubious on the necessity of categorizing on mechanics: some games "do it differently", yet succeed. The only real discriminant is a) group intention when playing and b) being confident that the game will produce something that addresses said intention. The ways in which various games obtain b) are too varied to really find a "common" mechanistic that identifies a StoryGame as such. Fate/bennies are certainly not the most characteristic one.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911735OK then, designed for a purpose. That's the whole point of design. And a system designed to facilitate certain goals can make achieving other goals more difficult.

It might. It might not. We’d need to be discussing specific goals and systems to know whether might or might not applied.

QuoteAnd yet traditional RPGs treat them as one and the same. Your skill equals your action not intent, and succeeding in your action implies succeeding in your intent (unless the GM is being a dick). And what if you have multiple intentions per action? How can you achieve one but fail the other? What makes one intention separate from another in the first place?

Again, no.

Your skill (actually your PC’s skill) is your ability to succeed at some specific action (situational modifiers frequently adjust the chance for success and actions may be opposed so your success or failure may be affected by an opponent's roll). Succeeding in your action only implies succeeding in your intent in certain circumstances* and after adjustment for situational modifiers and opposing rolls. Players understand that action and intent aren’t the same thing (unless, that is, the players are clueless or childish whiners**).

QuoteBeyond the above, I've got a whole RPG based on that premise which does a better job of demonstrating the issue than I can here and now.

That may be, but it doesn’t advance our discussion here now does it?

QuoteThe whole point of discussion is because understanding is imperfect, but that doesn't mean communication can't be improved by knowing where and why it fails.

Knowing is also imperfect. I doubt you will know exactly where and why communication fails. Usually one is doing well to just be aware that communication has failed. And it isn’t all that important to know exactly when and where and why communication failed. All that matters is recognizing a failure occurred and then finding some means for better and more clear communication.


* To be specific, only when the intent and the action are very closely aligned and there are no situational factors that prevent the intent from being achieved.

** You know, the flip side to dickish GMs.

Clearly, the story games crowd does not seem to believe there is a difference between RPGs and Story Games (i.e. story games ARE rpgs).

http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/117518/#Comment_117518

Sorry for the size of the image, but I couldn't resize it with bbcode. This is how the former admin of storygames seemed to visualize story games and their relationship to RPGs:

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;912256Clearly, the story games crowd does not seem to believe there is a difference between RPGs and Story Games (i.e. story games ARE rpgs).

There isn't.  The latter is just a subset of the former.

Quote from: yosemitemike;912308There isn't.  The latter is just a subset of the former.

Kinda came across this with the new Delta Green the other day.

Under no circumstances would DG ever be described as a Storygame, yet the introduction of Bonds gives a powerful tool to the players to (potentially) drive expanded characterization and possibly new storylines.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911735I highly doubt that, but if you show me a link I'm more than happy to concede.

Sorry it took me so ling to respond.  I am just too busy to post these days.

Most of the discussion can be found on these two threads:

http://14062642.weebly.talkiforum.com/20150209/your-hopes-and-desires-for-this-edition-of-th-4553324/

http://14062642.weebly.talkiforum.com/20150209/product-line-what-do-you-want-to-see-4553331/

Of course, nobody used the words "stupid GMs" the way I did, but that's what the argument for GM limitations, as it was communicated to me, amounts to.

Also, there were several threads on this site (and I believe you participated in them) where the 2d20 developers argued that many GMs weren't competent enough to handle such authority as - (god forbid) range increments (gasp) - measured in yards, and needed abstract "zones" so they couldn't abuse the players (among many other arguments).

And really, what is to doubt? It is not like arguments against GM authority (who supposedly abuse it or are unable to handle it) for the sake of the game or the players are uncommon.

Anyway, I think this particular argument is tangential to the main point, but since you asked for evidence... well there ya go.

QuoteOriginally Posted by ArrozConLeche
Clearly, the story games crowd does not seem to believe there is a difference between RPGs and Story Games (i.e. story games ARE rpgs).

Quote from: yosemitemike;912308There isn't.  The latter is just a subset of the former.

Let's forget about labels for a moment, because they invite bias and judgment perceptions, and focus on what games do or can do from a mechanical perspective.  

I think any RPG can be played OoC, regardless of rules.  Players can remove themselves from character perspective, and with group agreement, anyone can make decisions about the world/game that the character could not.

However, the opposite is not true.  Some games cannot be played IC because there are some game rules that can force a player out of an IC perspective and into an OoC perspective.

On the other hand, there are no mechanics in any game that can force you to play IC - it can't be done. Like I said, you can always play OoC.

In other words, one playstyle (OoC) is possible under any rules, and the other (IC) is not.  Rules can enforce OoC perspective but they can't enforce IC perspective.  Therein lies a difference.

I think this difference helps to explain why people who favor OoC play, or are comfortable with it, have a hard time seeing any difference, but the contrast is sharper to people who play RPGs IC.

Quote from: Motorskills;912399Under no circumstances would DG ever be described as a Storygame

Yeah because a player choosing out of character to have Cthulhu ruin the PC's marriage instead of the PC going insane is straight up IC-POV roleplaying. :rolleyes:
Jesus Wept.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912594Yeah because a player choosing out of character to have Cthulhu ruin the PC's marriage instead of the PC going insane is straight up IC-POV roleplaying. :rolleyes:
Jesus Wept.

If your imagination is that limited, you are best off sticking to murderhobo room clearance games.

Quote from: Motorskills;912654If your imagination is that limited, you are best off sticking to murderhobo room clearance games.

Snark aside, my point is that there is a spectrum, and while the moniker "storygame" may have some useful contribution, if it serves to divide, I'm not interested.

Quote from: Motorskills;912654If your imagination is that limited, you are best off sticking to murderhobo room clearance games.

If your understanding of your native tongue is that limited, so that simple definitions elude you; you are best off looking at assisted suicide, maybe?

Seriously, I understand the storytelling hooks and the drama.  Faced with a Lovecraftian monstrosity, as your mind crumbles, you rely on the strength of your human connections to save you and let you fight on.  But, in the end, it leaves that relationship, that memory somewhat tainted.  The Mythos might be uncaring, but surviving it is a cruel irony.  It's an old technique used again and again in narrative.  How many times did Sam get Frodo to keep going on by invoking the memory of the Shire.  In the end though, Frodo saved the Shire...for all Hobbits except himself and he sailed into the West.  In the novel Christine, after surviving that horror together, Dennis and Leigh break up despite their love, because that horror is shared, and as long as they are together, the memory doesn't fade.  It's powerful storytelling.

The POINT is though, the character isn't deciding any of that, the player is.  Therefore it's an Out of Character mechanic, and when I invoke it, I move from roleplaying my character, to telling stories about my character.  Therefore the Bond Mechanic is a Storygame mechanic, narrative mechanic, whatever you want to call it.

What I call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character.
What you call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character and telling stories about your character.
Sorry, your definition is imprecise and overbroad.  It's like calling Rocky Road ice cream "chocolate".  No, that definition will not do.

If the original Delta Green (without any OOC mechanics) was a roleplaying game, then the new Delta Green (which adds in non-roleplaying mechanics) is also a roleplaying game?  At what point are we going to accept that...
1. A roleplaying game without any OOC mechanics at all.
and
2. A roleplaying game with core OOC mechanics.
...are not quite the same thing?

Nah, here's the real Venn diagram, the intersection of Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming...


Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming of course can all be done separately.

The intersection of Roleplaying and Storytelling is what we all did as kids, Playing Pretend.

The original wargames started off as Gaming, but the idea of a campaign and persistence led to something beyond isolated episodes.  That led to growth and change of units and commanders. As they moved to skirmish and then man-to-man levels, the ability to inhabit a character both on the battlefield and off gave birth to the original RPGs, which were an intersection of Roleplaying and Gaming.
(Now I'm sure at this point some will claim that Storytelling was a feature, and perhaps, even back in the Braunstein days some people were keeping an eye to creating Story at the same time.)  Mechanically, though, there was nothing to support it.  The first RPGs were RPGs without OOC mechanics.

After Roleplaying Games came out, soon came Genre RPGs, the first games with mechanical support for Storytelling elements.  Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics were born.

I don't know when the first Storytelling Game without Roleplay came about, it was probably a cardgame or somesuch.

Most games people think of as Traditional RPGs lie in the "RPGs without OOC Mechanics" intersection, with the Genre trailblazers being the first of the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics".

These days almost all RPG game design that is not specifically OSR, is focused exclusively in the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics" intersection.   Pick a game that's come out in the last ten years that isn't a retroclone/OSR compatible or the umpteeth edition of a game that's been around for a while.  It will have OOC mechanics, near guaranteed.

The only question to my mind is, can these mechanics be removed to allow mechanically for an exclusively IC-POV experience?

The switch between IC and OOC mechanics is binary and objective, it always has been.  Where the subjectivity comes in is whether such an OOC mechanics breaks suspension of disbelief/IC Immersion for you.

"Yeah it's got OOC mechanics, but it doesn't bother me" =/= "It doesn't have OOC mechanics."

So as far as definitions go, what do we call the Venn Intersections?

RPGs without OOC mechanics - Roleplaying Games
Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics - Genre RPGs, Storytelling RPGs, Narrative RPGs, Tactical RPGs - the key definer here is WHY it is OOC.
Storytelling Games without Roleplaying - Storygames

Nah, here's the real Venn diagram, the intersection of Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming...


Roleplaying, Storytelling and Gaming of course can all be done separately.

The intersection of Roleplaying and Storytelling is what we all did as kids, Playing Pretend.

The original wargames started off as Gaming, but the idea of a campaign and persistence led to something beyond isolated episodes.  That led to growth and change of units and commanders. As they moved to skirmish and then man-to-man levels, the ability to inhabit a character both on the battlefield and off gave birth to the original RPGs, which were an intersection of Roleplaying and Gaming.
(Now I'm sure at this point some will claim that Storytelling was a feature, and perhaps, even back in the Braunstein days some people were keeping an eye to creating Story at the same time.)  Mechanically, though, there was nothing to support it.  The first RPGs were RPGs without OOC mechanics.

After Roleplaying Games came out, soon came Genre RPGs, the first games with mechanical support for Storytelling elements.  Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics were born.

I don't know when the first Storytelling Game without Roleplay came about, it was probably a cardgame or somesuch.

Most games people think of as Traditional RPGs lie in the "RPGs without OOC Mechanics" intersection, with the Genre trailblazers being the first of the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics".

These days almost all RPG game design that is not specifically OSR, is focused exclusively in the "Roleplaying Games with OOC Mechanics" intersection.   Pick a game that's come out in the last ten years that isn't a retroclone/OSR compatible or the umpteeth edition of a game that's been around for a while.  It will have OOC mechanics, near guaranteed.

The only question to my mind is, can these mechanics be removed to allow mechanically for an exclusively IC-POV experience?

The switch between IC and OOC mechanics is binary and objective, it always has been.  Where the subjectivity comes in is whether such an OOC mechanics breaks suspension of disbelief/IC Immersion for you.

"Yeah it's got OOC mechanics, but it doesn't bother me" =/= "It doesn't have OOC mechanics."