Quote from: Anon Adderlan;911169It's a start, but by this definition Sorcerer still isn't a storygame, so it may need some work

I don't own it so I can't help you there.

QuoteIf a game helps players to better achieve their goals then it can be said to have that goal.

What Bren said.

QuoteYou may recall the whole reason The Forge got started in the first place was because Ron Edwards was irritated that Vampire: The Masquerade failed to be what it claimed on the tin. And the whole point of The Forge was to facilitate the design of games which were clear about which player needs they met.

I don't recall.  I only know enough about the Forge to stick my foot in my mouth, that and whenever a subject like this comes up I know someone will come along and tell me it is the only true way of thinking.

QuoteThe honesty in advertising slant was great, and I've yet to see it equaled anywhere, but what brought it down was assigning values to the agendas.

Unclear.

QuoteFor example...
...you might not begrudge them...
...but you've obviously made value judgments about certain styles of play...

I didn't pass any value judgements. I made an observation. Gygax assumed players and GMs were smart, Modiphius designed their game under the assumption that people were stupid and needed rules fix their stupidity.  They told me so.

Here's a value judgement for that design philosophy: "Rules can't cure stupid" - Gronan.
         

Quote...and if you want games to be honest about what they are, maybe you should be as well.

I may be many things, and may even be wrong from time to time. I am not afraid to own it, but I am most certainly Not dishonest.  Please don't get personal. It makes the whole process unpleasant. You have no grounds for such a statement.

QuoteAnother thing The Forge proposed was that various player agendas become mutually exclusive at certain points. Your comments show that's demonstratively true, yet the idea is still strongly fought against. But we're not going to be able to honestly label what games really are until we get past that.

Players' agendas have no bearing on the definition in question.  That's why I think it works where others don't.  People keep interjecting "but what about my goals?" The mechanics don't care.  

QuoteI've come to the conclusion that there's an important distinction between Action and Intent that isn't being addressed, and most RPGs still treat them as one and the same. Your above example demonstrates why that might not be the best idea.

What Bren said.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;910846Long before "story games" was a term, I encountered people talking about gaming choices that "would make a better story."

Yes, it has been a part of the conversation from the beginning for me too.  And I admit, I like a good story. But I have had plenty of good stories come out of traditional RPGs, and I am sure you have as well.

QuoteTo cut to the chase, the mission turned into an utter debacle, because when we finally found the entrance, I realized ... DESPITE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN CONVERSATIONS BEFOREHAND ... that while I was playing "espionage," half the players fully expected one knight, a squire, one apprentice magician, and a few castle guards to beat twenty strong necromancers, a dozen gargoyles, and a couple of hundred zombies.  Because I was playing "recon patrol" and they were playing "Disney princess movie."  They expected us to win, because we were the PCs, and the PCs are the protagonists, and therefore we would win.

I have players infected with "Disney Princess Movie" syndrome as well.  It's a bit annoying because it causes my desire to entertain to conflict with my desire to be impartial as a GM.  Funny thing though, my Disney Princesses don't like OoC mechanics, or games that ask them to make decisions their characters couldn't make.  It's not like they want narrative control.  They're more like... spectators? I'm not sure if that's exactly it either.

QuoteMy definition would be a "Story Game" is a game that gives players a substantial amount of "narrativium".  There are games that do that, and I posit that they arose in response to a desire already felt by some players.

So how do games give narrativium to players?  I think your definition parallels that of the OP.  It seems to me that the only way a game can do this is through rules, systems, and mechanics (what else do games have other than pieces?).  Crueger's definition goes a step further and explains exactly when rules give narrativium, doesn't it (I ask the universe)?

The trouble is, a few rules here and there that give players narrativium are not necessarily enough to define the whole game as a story game.  So the question becomes, how much of these rules are necessary for the game to cease being an RPG and start being a storygame? I think it's simple (but I have been known to miss things).  When a game forces players to take narrative control, and the game cannot be played otherwise (without changing the rules) then it is a story game.

Seems clear as day to me, but I am sure it just pisses some people off.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911283I have players infected with "Disney Princess Movie" syndrome as well.  It's a bit annoying because it causes my desire to entertain to conflict with my desire to be impartial as a GM.  Funny thing though, my Disney Princesses don't like OoC mechanics, or games that ask them to make decisions their characters couldn't make.  It's not like they want narrative control.  They're more like... spectators? I'm not sure if that's exactly it either.

Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?

That may sound more pejorative then I intend it to mean. So let me explain what I mean.

Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured (or, in the case of something like Game of Thrones, that they are highly unlikely to be killed in any given episode, especially if the episode is in the middle of a season) any more than they are going to marry the romantic interest of the week and live happily (or unhappily) with them for the rest of [strike]their lives[/strike] the series. RPG campaigns, because they have the continuation and repetition of a TV series, may seem like they should follow the tropes of a TV series which may incline some players to want the same sort of outcome for their PCs as they see for action heroes in a franchise or series regulars on a TV show.  

QuoteSo how do games give narrativium to players?

I am reminded of our old Star Trek campaign. We intentionally imitated a lot of the tropes of the TV series (predominantly TOS and TNG since our setting was in the decades between the two series). As an example, I remember one conversation we had before an away team beamed over to a derelict space ship. The ship had residual power providing heat, light, and a breatheable atmosphere. So the question came up as to whether the team should take the logical, reasonable, safe approach of wearing full environmental suits, maintaining constant contact via their communicators, and the transporter room on the main ship keeping a transporter lock on them at all times or whether they should, like the characters on the TV shows, beam over in their ordinary uniforms with simple hand phasers and at most check in at periodic intervals?

Now I'd say that if the expectation is that the PCs are not going to be killed or permanently injured (just like the main characters on the various series) then following the series tropes is reasonably safe and is more likely to result in a session that is like the TV shows. But if the expectation is that space is cold, and the universe is an uncaring place, then a different approach is going to be the reasonable approach to take.

Quote from: Bren;911285Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?

That may sound more pejorative then I intend it to mean. So let me explain what I mean.

Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured (or, in the case of something like Game of Thrones, that they are highly unlikely to be killed in any given episode, especially if the episode is in the middle of a season) any more than they are going to marry the romantic interest of the week and live happily (or unhappily) with them for the rest of [strike]their lives[/strike] the series. RPG campaigns, because they have the continuation and repetition of a TV series, may seem like they should follow the tropes of a TV series which may incline some players to want the same sort of outcome for their PCs as they see for action heroes in a franchise or series regulars on a TV show.  

I am reminded of our old Star Trek campaign. We intentionally imitated a lot of the tropes of the TV series (predominantly TOS and TNG since our setting was in the decades between the two series). As an example, I remember one conversation we had before an away team beamed over to a derelict space ship. The ship had residual power providing heat, light, and a breatheable atmosphere. So the question came up as to whether the team should take the logical, reasonable, safe approach of wearing full environmental suits, maintaining constant contact via their communicators, and the transporter room on the main ship keeping a transporter lock on them at all times or whether they should, like the characters on the TV shows, beam over in their ordinary uniforms with simple hand phasers and at most check in at periodic intervals?

Now I'd say that if the expectation is that the PCs are not going to be killed or permanently injured (just like the main characters on the various series) then following the series tropes is reasonably safe and is more likely to result in a session that is like the TV shows. But if the expectation is that space is cold, and the universe is an uncaring place, then a different approach is going to be the reasonable approach to take.

This is an excellent post.  We played a great Star Trek TOS game that lasted about a year, and it was a very "high narrativium" game.  However, we sat down and talked about it.  (Contrary to what some may bray, talking about stuff actually works.)  The referee said that we wouldn't be penalized for doing what they did on TV rather than what made objective sense, so I as Captain stopped worrying about it and simply used to say "Player characters to the Transporter Room".

TOS is a great example.  We KNEW Captain Kirk wasn't gonna die, and the Enterprise wasn't going to be destroyed, but all we eager TV viewers agreed to pretend we didn't know that.

It can work great, just as long as everyone is on the same page. I wouldn't want Star Trek RPGing to be any different, but I want my D&D to be a little closer to its wargaming roots.  Non disputatus de gustibus, YMMV, and all that.

So genres have tropes and RPGs about those genres should utilize and respect the tropes of that genre?

Yes. I agree water is still wet.

Quote from: Spinachcat;911307So genres have tropes and RPGs about those genres should utilize and respect the tropes of that genre?

Yes. I agree water is still wet.

But how?  If the Captain wants to beam down to every planet regardless of the amount of information and danger there might be, do we have a rule that anyone with Rank: Captain on the sheet cannot be killed?  Do we have some Tenra Bansho Zero "I allow you to kill me box?"  There's a difference between mechanics that FORCE GENRE and conventions that could be followed.  Here's where Brady's "Gentleman's Agreement" actually does exist and has been used in games of all types since the start of the hobby.  The thing is, there's no defense against a GM who wants to break that agreement, hence the entire point of narrative control mechanics in the first place - forcing GM's to accept convention through mechanics.

Narrativium is a good term, but it focuses on only one type of OOC mechanic.  An AEDU structure for combat maneuvers is definitely dissociated for certain things, combat maneuvers that trip slimes, etc. are OOC mechanics in that they allow the player to make choices the character cannot make, but doesn't have anything to do with Narrativium or Storygaming, the choice is one that gives tactical depth, supporting the Game aspect, not a third person author aspect.

Some kind of basic breakdown (these are not official suggestions of definitions, just broad categories at this point)

1. Roleplaying Games that do not include OOC mechanics
2. Roleplaying Games that do contain OOC mechanics
   2a. OOC mechanics based on reinforcing genre
2b. OOC mechanics based on granting narrative control to give players storytelling power.
2c. OOC mechanics based on providing tactical depth to the game
3. Collaborative Storytelling games (containing roleplaying) that include mechanics to govern who gets to tell the story.

Now obviously 1 is pretty straightforward.

2 of course is what powers all the Sturm und Drang on forums.  For some people, a game like Pendragon, obviously a 2a, doesn't feel really any different to them then a 1 game.  There's a lot of people who always have and always "roleplay" in third person authorial stance and not even know that's what they're doing.  Suggest that technically they may not be solely roleplaying and...well...shit gets real.

The thing is, these definitions can be objective.  We talk about a spectrum and a slide as if the whole thing is subjective, but the definitions above are NOT subjective.  They are fact.  
What is subjective is whether or not such OOC mechanics disrupt immersion into an IC-POV...for you (or if you even enter IC-POV at all).
The fact that a game contains OOC mechanics that you cannot engage with from a IC-POV is not subjective.  That you personally consider it "close enough" and can mentally paper it over doesn't mean there's nothing there, it means you're mentally papering it over.

Rant Spoiler:

Spoiler

[RANT]The problem is, who has ever said on a forum "Yeah, I'm roleplaying as well as storytelling, so what?"  No one on this forum, that's for sure.  You'll see it on purple, you'll see it on storygames.com or anyplace else, but over here it's usually something like Narrative??!WTFWHARGARGBLE!1!  Too many people are more intellectually invested in denying Pundit any form of satisfaction then they are honestly discussing something.[/RANT]

So any kind of a definition that claims that "Storygame" is when we hit my personal subjective tipping point for OOC mechanics isn't going to work.  We have to come up with something concrete.  If you think that this is a fools errand and it can't done, ok, please go fuck off elsewhere and leave us to our mental masturbatory theory circle jerk.

Rosen and Anon are correct in that assumptions of the game designer are important.  Now obviously a game can't have an agenda, or a goal, but a game can be designed specifically to support a goal, to the point where it can actually not be as useful to people without that goal.  Most cars can carry a little, haul a little, do some very simple offroad, and do well on streets or freeway, and you could drive it on a racetrack.  Obviously if you care heavily about one of those things, and not others, you get a car that specializes.  We have general tools and specific tools.  This applies to everything, including language, itself a tool.  You have normal vocabulary and jargon.

If there is a game that assumes you are going to want the type of player control that allows the enforcement of genre and grants narrative authority to players, and designs for that purpose, well then that system is pretty much 100% useless to people who do not want that capability.  System Matters was pretty much the rallying cry of the Forge (which is why I always found it repugnant that so many storygame advocates argued here that {insert game} wasn't some game specifically designed for a specific purpose).

So please, let's not do an Encyclopedia Rainman Brown and simply accept that if a designer specifically designs a game to support players with that goal, then "the game supports that goal" is decent enough shorthand.  We all know a tool can't think (at least not yet).  That being said, I think a definition does need to focus on the game, not the player.  The reason is, players play different types of games.  I liked 2d20 for what it was, I did not like it as my standard RPG, because it is not a standard roleplaying game despite what some would claim.  

So "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.

Quote from: Bren;911285Do you think that what they want is the illusion of risk without the actuality?

That may sound more pejorative then I intend it to mean. So let me explain what I mean.

Television shows, films, and many novels provide the viewer/reader with the illusion of risk. There are the occasional exceptions, but in the vast majority of popular media, especially popular repeating series, most viewers know that the protagonists are not going to be killed or permanently injured (or, in the case of something like Game of Thrones, that they are highly unlikely to be killed in any given episode, especially if the episode is in the middle of a season) any more than they are going to marry the romantic interest of the week and live happily (or unhappily) with them for the rest of [strike]their lives[/strike] the series. RPG campaigns, because they have the continuation and repetition of a TV series, may seem like they should follow the tropes of a TV series which may incline some players to want the same sort of outcome for their PCs as they see for action heroes in a franchise or series regulars on a TV show.  

Yes, I think that is pretty much it.  They want an action story where they get to be the protagonist and have everything come out as it "should."  They want to participate in the story, but they don't want to create it, and they don't want it to turn out wrong either.  They have the expectation that they will struggle mightily, maybe even have setbacks, but come out on top - like they're watching TV but determining the moves of their characters.

Now, not all of my players are like this (I have several groups and a wide range of players).  Thinking about it, most of these Disney Princesses (except 1 who is a new player) grew up on 3.5, so challenge rating mentality might be the culprit, but I see other players, even old timers like me with war-gaming roots buying into the mentality too so I think it is deeper.  As you say, it may be the result of media bombardment.  In any case, I certainly think a GM who is looking for a game that has some contrary assumptions to mass media formula has his work cut out for him explaining his expectations.

Slightly off topic but related to the thread, I don't think these players are some kind of latent, oppressed story gamers just because they want their game to result in a story.  I don't think story games don't have a monopoly on story.  Nobody here in this thread is saying they do, and I am not accusing anyone, but we have had contentious threads discussing how (or if) traditional RPGs produce story (or narrative), and I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't come in and say "your game has a story, therefore it is a story game." I'd like to nip that idea in the bud.

As for Star Trek, I think specific genre tropes are another question.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911450Yes, I think that is pretty much it.  They want an action story where they get to be the protagonist and have everything come out as it "should."  They want to participate in the story, but they don't want to create it, and they don't want it to turn out wrong either.  They have the expectation that they will struggle mightily, maybe even have setbacks, but come out on top - like they're watching TV but determining the moves of their characters.

Yeah that is a preference I've seen. Pretty much the way we played Star Trek. I don't have time to respond more now as I need to catch 2-3 hours sleep before I go to the airport. I'll write more later, but it may be a few days as I am traveling.

QuoteI'd like to nip that idea in the bud.

Fine by me.

I will note though, that in a somewhat recent "contentious thread" I caught a lot of shit for suggesting that some players wanted their characters to have "plot immunity" to death. Funny to see some of the people who most fervently attacked this idea now supporting it.

But supporting it by a "gentleman's agreement" doesn't seem like a best case scenario to me, especially if it is an unspoken agreement which only one party assumes to exist. I can't stand when a GM is constantly fudging and bailing the PCs out behind the scenes, while refusing to acknowledge it is going on.

Quote from: Manzanaro;911488I will note though, that in a somewhat recent "contentious thread" I caught a lot of shit for suggesting that some players wanted their characters to have "plot immunity" to death. Funny to see some of the people who most fervently attacked this idea now supporting it.

But supporting it by a "gentleman's agreement" doesn't seem like a best case scenario to me, especially if it is an unspoken agreement which only one party assumes to exist. I can't stand when a GM is constantly fudging and bailing the PCs out behind the scenes, while refusing to acknowledge it is going on.

Identifying something isn't necessarily supporting it.  I think you're pointing to other posters, but for me, I think the idea that a Starfleet Captain can't die is simply asinine.  But then again, I don't generally like playing with a 4th wall breaking adherence to genre, I was just pointing out that...
1. A Star Trek game mechanically enforcing genre through OOC mechanics.
2. A Star Trek game without any OOC mechanical enforcement of genre, where the genre conventions are enforced by players and GM.
...are not the same game, at all.

2 allows for flexibility in approach, 1 does not, thus 1 is worthless to someone who wants to play from an IC-PoV.  They want to play Captain Kirk, not Captain Kirk, William Shatner and Gene Roddenberry all at the same time.

Hmm. Well here is a question. If the GM is expressly noted by the rules to be able to do or declare anything and to always be right, does that count as mechanical enforcement?

No.  Expendable drama points that you can spend to narrate an outcome other than death is mechanical enforcement.  A box that you must check to declare your character killable is mechanical enforcement.  GM Fiat is not a mechanic.

D&D always allowed different types of play, but if you had a bunch of people who were all about creating a story while they were playing (and no, not everyone does that) it was up to the GM to work with them to make that happen, or not.  Otherwise is was just a player making decisions trying to create a story about their character, while everyone else was doing something different.

For example, the so-called Storyteller System had Humanity, but compared to something like Pendragon, there was hardly any mechanical hooks into the character that could be invoked OOC by the Player or by the GM to move the character in different story directions.

The Storyteller System wasn't a system about telling stories, it was a system that let you roleplay a vampire.  Mr. Edwards felt betrayed and the rest is history.

Well, I feel like "a player may affect the game world by declaring that something happens" is actually THE fundamental mechanic of RPGs, but perhaps so fundamental that it stops registering as a mechanic.

But your further comments make me think about a definition I was thinking about earlier which is "a story game is a game whose rules are not about what happens, but about who has the authority to SAY what happens". But that's still not entirely clear cut.