Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1080087Joyce will never be forgotten so long as there are people who hate both comprehensible books and reading for pleasure.  How that crap gets passed off as great I have never understood.

Joyce would not be forgotten if people valued the short story and only read _Dubliners_ He demonstrates there what a great, not merely good, writer he could be when he wasn't trying to be something else. I admit to enjoying _Ulysses_ when reading and discussing it in a small class where I was the only undergraduate. I never could re-read it and haven't tried in decades.

What's funny about the storygames movement is they spent years deriding D&D as an incoherent, juvenile, and dumb game, and held it responsible for keeping RPGs as a hobby confined to nerdish boy-men. If only people moved on from that stuff into mature, intelligent narrative-driven games, RPGs would step out of the basement and into the sunlit uplands of respectable adult hobby.

But what happened in reality? The RPG hobby is bigger than it has ever been, more mainstream than even its most unflagging boosters ever imagined, and has a remarkable profile in pop culture. And it's not because of mature, intelligent, elegantly-designed storygames. It's because of D&D, baby. RPGs made it mainstream because millions of normies have taken up D&D. Christ, how that must gall them.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1080076Again, I disagree. People wanted different things in their games and as a result, they evolved. It's a market that has trends and these trends change. The light in which these changes are seen is very tribal and divisive and that's stupid. We are very lucky in our hobby because it's largely timeless. We can use books from decades ago as if they were brand new. With some exceptions dice haven't really changed a lot. We're not dependant on any other hardware than our brains and can keep enjoying old games. It strikes me as so stupid when, for example, a smart man like Pundit pops into a thread on a game he doesn't like for idealogical reasons, and tyen chimes in with "It's storygame trash". That serves no good purpose and simply places him onto the opposite side of the tribalism coin.

So you accept that there are such things as "story-games" distinct from "classical RPGs" - that they are distinguishable and have different design parameters, you are just concerned that people are trashing story games or attempting to exclude them from the RPG hobby as a whole?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1080099Joyce would not be forgotten if people valued the short story and only read _Dubliners_ He demonstrates there what a great, not merely good, writer he could be when he wasn't trying to be something else.

Agreed. People forget Joyce was a master of conventional prose before he went full avant-garde modernist. Dubliners is some of the best writing in the english language.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080120What's funny about the storygames movement is they spent years deriding D&D as an incoherent, juvenile, and dumb game, and held it responsible for keeping RPGs as a hobby confined to nerdish boy-men. If only people moved on from that stuff into mature, intelligent narrative-driven games, RPGs would step out of the basement and into the sunlit uplands of respectable adult hobby.

But what happened in reality? The RPG hobby is bigger than it has ever been, more mainstream than even its most unflagging boosters ever imagined, and has a remarkable profile in pop culture. And it's not because of mature, intelligent, elegantly-designed storygames. It's because of D&D, baby. RPGs made it mainstream because millions of normies have taken up D&D. Christ, how that must gall them.

Hello Haffrung, how's the weather in Tanelorn?  Pretty calm, I imagine?  

This is kinda what I was driving at with the comment that the "story-game revolution failed".  I was active on the Forge when it was new and heady stuff, and I remember that attitude and critique.  I think, in a way, they had a point.  D&D had become bloated and less fun, but rather than go back to the when they had fun with RPGs, and ask what made those so great and what had been lost, they went the opposite direction and tried to throw the baby out with the bathwater.   I don't have anything against story-games per-se, or even so called "narrativist" leanings in RPGs.  It's just a different experience and, as you point out, did not displace the "classic rpg" at all.

Story games have the intrinsic issue that it is harder for a group to produce a fun and interesting collaborative narrative then it is for the same group to pretend they are a bunch of characters having adventures in an interesting situation or setting.

The former require you have an understanding of drama, characterization, plot structure and other elements of stories. The latter just requires one to listen and to give a response as if they were there as the character.

Quote from: Omega;1080074Thinking on it I believe that actually RPGs ARE for making a story. Through the actions of the characters and how they react to the things that they encounter that the DM presents.
Storygames tend to be more about dictating a story, telling a story as they go rather than making a story from experiences.
Hybrids are all over the place.

Let's revise again the role of story. Story isn't an end in and of itself. I can give you a 3 sentence summary (story!) of the Lord of the Rings and it probably won't grab ya the same as reading the books or watching the movies. Why? Because the way is the goal. You want to be in that moment when Frodo gets hit by Shelob. And that is why there is such a divide between trad games (and I would classify most simulationist games under that) and narrative games. Player agency is good for tapping into player creativity and it can be great fun weaving a story together. But it threatens to undermine being in that moment, which we refer to as immersion-breaking. That goes especially, if you have the power to automagically solve any problems the GM has created for you. You want to sweat with your character for his life.

That said, personally, I consider it a bit extreme if you can't never ever step for a moment out of character to handle a metacurrency without it ruining your fun. Such purism is a bit suspect, imho.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080142You want to be in that moment when Frodo gets hit by Shelob.

.....

Player agency is good for tapping into player creativity and it can be great fun weaving a story together. But it threatens to undermine being in that moment, which we refer to as immersion-breaking.

Immersion is a separate quality .

In general it will be either fun and enjoyable to collaboratively create a story as group (story-game) or that you will be able to have adventures in a fun and interesting situation or setting (tabletop roleplaying).

Immersion comes about because the material being uses resonates with the participants to the point where they forget about the medium.

Immersion for story-game is akin to immersion in film, books, or theater. The quality and structure of the narrative is such that it draws you.

Tabletop roleplaying the source of immersion is different. It is the referee by his roleplaying and adjudication, enabling his players think for a moment that they are there as their character within that setting doing whatever it they are doing as their character.

The former is passive, the best one can hope for the audience is to feel as if they are there actually witnessing the events being depicted empathizing with the character. The latter immersion is active, transporting the players not as witnesses but as participants in a pen & paper virtual reality.

It is easier to contrive a situation or setting to experience that draw the players in than it is to come up a with narrative that makes one feel they are there witnessing the events being played out. The reason for the difference is the ability to make choices and to manipulate the environment.

Irregardless whether it is story-games or tabletop roleplaying, it has to be tailored to the participants. The first step is to learn about who is involved and choose the things that works for that group. Then the odds of immersion dramatically increase.

Just about any combination of techniques, style, and complexity can be made to  work provided it is the right group.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080055

OK, fine, we get it, you're salty that I keep bringing up your inconsistencies.  Sorry, mate, but I call it as I see it.  I don't have malice against inanimate objects like games.  They exist, just because you attach a sense of personal agency or identity to one is of no consequence.  I don't like you favourite game, mate, it's not a personal attack on you.  I also try to be as objective as I can, do I succeed, fucked if I know.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1080075I never said that RPGs didn't change or evolve. My contention is that certain RPGs aren't RPGs and are "storygames" because of reasons.

Thing is, this is the crux of it.  EVERYONE here has outlined what THEY believe Pundit means, except that Pundit when he chimed it, did not.

Several of us have also pointed out (as I have with actual page references) to at least one of Pundits favourite games that could, by all accounts be considered a Storygame, and no one has refuted the point.  Not even Pundit.  Other than saying it is NOT a Storygame.  Because Reasons.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080225Several of us have also pointed out (as I have with actual page references) to at least one of Pundits favourite games that could, by all accounts be considered a Storygame, and no one has refuted the point.  Not even Pundit.  Other than saying it is NOT a Storygame.  Because Reasons.

If you mean Amber, reality modification is part of the setting. An ability that many of the characters possesses. Thus when using it, you are doing it from the viewpoint of your character. Unlike metagame mechanics, like Fate points where you make your decision as a player of a game. This has been stated numerous times.

Quote from: estar;1080247If you mean Amber, reality modification is part of the setting. An ability that many of the characters possesses. Thus when using it, you are doing it from the viewpoint of your character. Unlike metagame mechanics, like Fate points where you make your decision as a player of a game. This has been stated numerous times.

He doesn't mean that, but the fact players out of scene can contribute to setting details that the GM is supposed to accept.

I like to choose a course of action, and roll dice to determine my success.  If your game has that, then I might like it.  If not, then I probably won't.

Quote from: Itachi;1080292He doesn't mean that, but the fact players out of scene can contribute to setting details that the GM is supposed to accept.

No they can't, not as players.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080371No they can't, not as players.

Can they do that or not? Because someone above said yes, players can OOC contribute to setting details, and now you say they can't. Someone is reading the text wrong.

Quote from: Itachi;1080406Can they do that or not? Because someone above said yes, players can OOC contribute to setting details, and now you say they can't. Someone is reading the text wrong.

Would you like me to get the page number again, where the players CAN?

Amber Core Book, first printing 1991, page 106, under the heading Choosing Random Events, sub-heading Leaving the Choice to the Players.