Good points, estar. I wasn't particularly satisfied with the M&M example, it was just the first to come to mind. And on the 3-poles you laid out, that all makes sense.

I was looking more at Snowman's criteria and trying to seeing what fit or didn't fit so we'd have a concrete example to compare and contrast.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1080764...page 28, under the header "PLAYER CONTRIBUTIONS," specifically the Amber Stories. On a broader definition, the Diaries and the Log as well. And the Trumps.

Those are done outside of a session not during. Due to the limitations of human beings, a group can only focus on so much. The characters of the campaign have a life beyond the moments depicted during play. Diaries, Campaign Logs, creating setting details (like Amber's Trumps), and yes even writing short stories contribute to fleshing out life beyond the session.

However the most salient aspect that sets it apart from story games is its freeform. Aside from suggested point awards free from any type of formal mechanics. Aaron Allston in his Champion's Strike Book used Blue Book, (a type of school notebook for exams) to have the players chronicle their character's life between sessions.

In my own Majestic Wilderlands, I often give those interested leeway to flesh an aspect of my setting.  Half of the details on mages and mage, and the city guard came from the players coming up with details out of game. Then I retconned them into the campaign because they made sense in terms of how I initially presented those elements.

None of this is a form of collaborative storytelling. It more like Star Trek fan writing fleshing out what the Federation is like, or the Klingon Empire. It could be used as background for a story but it is not a story in of itself. For me it about letting the players making the background of the Majestic Wilderlands that much richer and having them invest in it which makes the campaign more enjoyable.

Wrapping it up

To be clear the above could be used as part of a campaign that focuses on constructing a collabrative narrative. But it is not conclusive in of itself. You have to look at the overall pictures of how the campaign is being conducted or in the case of Amber and other RPG books what kind of campaigns the author intended to make easy.

To me reading Amber Erick Wujcik intention is to get players to the point where they feel they are really there as Amberites doing the things described in the novels. It not story he after but immersion.

Immersion is not the same things as collabrative storytelling and has different goals and motivations. The most important of which is to be true to how the character's personality is described and how things work in the setting with the character's abilities. And the character's personality can be completely different than the players.

Which from personal experience can be off-putting to some.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081905Would it be fair to say there is such a thing as "Classic" RPGs and "Storygame" RPGs that are both subcategories of RPG?

That's a lens I would be welcome in adjusting.

Quote from: estar;1081921To me reading Amber Erick Wujcik intention is to get players to the point where they feel they are really there as Amberites doing the things described in the novels. It not story he after but immersion.

That's fair enough. I'm not wedded to my earlier analysis and am completely willing to consider more / new perspectives and lenses to attenuate the veiw like this.

QuoteImmersion is not the same things as collabrative storytelling and has different goals and motivations. The most important of which is to be true to how the character's personality is described and how things work in the setting with the character's abilities. And the character's personality can be completely different than the players.

Hmm. This though, I think you might (emphasize might) be too strong on this as a difference. Must it follow that if the most important thing is to immerse yourself in the character that you are not also immersing yourself in creating a compelling story? Character-driven stories are, after all, all about what would the character do faced with this situation.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081904That wasn't passive aggressive. That was restating what I read and asking for clarification. Stop trying to be offended and converse instead. (And in case this is difficult for you: that last sentence was not passive aggressive; that was active assertive.)

You expect me to buy that?  You been passive aggressive to people you had been disagreeing with and now trying to deflect it because I called you out.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081904Having done that for my wife and I, I can tell you exactly what happened with the miscategorization there. Let's just say that the movie that presented itself as "A Fun Romp About An Occult Priest Who Messes with These Protagonist Girls!" (The show in question was Bible Black, and nothing on that box in that store indicated what it actually was.)

You felt like a damn fool didn't you?  Thank you for proving my point.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081904And I don't think "RPG" has been a category in all other media.

Had you not notice video games.  They categorize their games and guess what?  No loss of sales and customers are informed into what game they are getting.  So why don't you want that for tabletop rpgs?  Don't give me this pathetic spectrum bullshit and give me a honest answer.

There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like.  That is it, that is all.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081930Hmm. This though, I think you might (emphasize might) be too strong on this as a difference. Must it follow that if the most important thing is to immerse yourself in the character that you are not also immersing yourself in creating a compelling story? Character-driven stories are, after all, all about what would the character do faced with this situation.

Some background, when I play this is what I generally do. I create a personality, and a back story (most often brief) and acts as the character during the session, often doing funny voice. I been doing this for a long time and is a major reason why in the early 90s I started playing NERO boffer LARP and running LARP events.

Within reason I am a pretty good actor to the point where there are time that I have to make sure people know I am roleplaying and that I am not really angry, or experiencing a particular negative emotion.

I am not creating a story when doing this either with tabletop or with LARPs. I don't the future in either situation and react based on how I think a character with the personality I am roleplaying would react to the circumstances.

I may have goals for example for a year I played a chatty friendly merchant type who behind the scene was assassinating any player who set themselves up as a threat to the nobility. Not that the nobles appreciated my effort as I got executed twice* for my effort. But as my character knew that would be a risk.

Another character of mine was rebellious Highlander Argyll Malcolm MacDoughal (made six month before Braveheart was out but then after Braveheart everybody who didn't know thought I was on the Braveheart bandwagon). Again I developed a personality, had goals but dealt with things as the way I though somebody with Argyll's personality would deal with it.

The same with Tabletop roleplaying character like my Half-Orc Fighter Boog who only speak of himself in third person.

speaking as Boog

QuoteBoog doesn't have story, Boog is Boog and Boog will act like Boog to do what Boog wants to do.

My current character is Johann Schwartz. Statwise a B/X Cleric, but background wise a member of the Ordo Monstrum Occisur** i.e. OMO. They are group of occult hunters who commune with the font of Law as represented by the Theophant which is where Johann gets his clerical abilities.

I play him as a frail (6 Constitution) fussy man with a thick german accent  who is continually misspeaking, a little socially clueless (because he has an 8 Charisma) I attached his first level character sheet. Again as Johann, I have goals which broadly are to find and kill any monsters in the region and to establish a chapter of the order to keep the monster out.

Wrapping it up

I hope it is clear by my examples, is that I am not creating stories for this characters but immersing myself in their background and personalities. I have a narrative I am following, no idea what will be the climax or denouement will be like. I just plan and react accordingly.



*NERO Boffer LARPS gives you two deaths. Afterwards you have to do what is called pulling for the stone. There is a bag with black and white stone. If pulled the black stone your death permanent. Otherwise your spirit appears in the local Healer Circle where you can be raised. The more deaths you have beyond the first two the more black stone go into the bag.

** Order of Monster Hunters

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081934There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like.  That is it, that is all.

So there are no games where the goal is to collaborate on a narrative through the mechanics of a game?

Jux?
Once upon Time?

So why not a more sophiscated hybrid form that borrows liberally from wargaming and tabletop roleplaying but shifts the focus to building collaborative narrative instead of pretending be character in a setting.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1081932You expect me to buy that?  You been passive aggressive to people you had been disagreeing with and now trying to deflect it because I called you out.

I don't expect you to buy anything. I don't care if you buy anything. I expect you to recognize when someone was asking for clarity. Again stop trying to be offended and maybe you won't be so upset when someone says, "So this is what I heard, is that correct?" or the equivalent.

It seems like, from what you posted alone, you just don't like the marketing gimmick. Is that it? Is there more? Because if not, that seems a little odd. (Not stupid, not dumb, not anything else you want to read derogatory in that. If you want to be offended by that, go ahead, but that's wholly on you).

QuoteYou felt like a damn fool didn't you?  Thank you for proving my point.

Not really. We had a good laugh about it (kids were already in bed). And, as I said, I can tell you exactly why the miscategorization happened. Every single descriptor of the movie was accurate. It also happened to be a porn. When we pointed this out to the store, they pulled it. The DVD was "unrated." So you can't even say that the terms were meaningless. Someone at the store forgot to do their homework. In every other respect, they had put it in the correct category. It was a fiction. It was a fantasy. It was an anime. It was an occult-themed movie.

QuoteHad you not notice video games.

Didn't notice the all did you? Pretty sure non-fiction media doesn't use roleplaying game as a category. Pretty sure stage plays don't use RPGs as a category, so that's another.

QuoteThey categorize their games and guess what?  No loss of sales and customers are informed  into what game they are getting. So why don't you want that for tabletop rpgs?  Don't give me this pathetic spectrum bullshit and give me a honest answer.

Why are you fighting over this so vehemently? (EDIT: And by that, I mean that I have no beef with you. Getting this worked up over the topic is genuinely bewildering.) You have yet to actually answer why this is so important that one be an RPG and one not. I mean, except for having to do more research on your own. I guess laziness can be an answer, but I choose to believe that it's not your answer. If I'm wrong, and that is your only answer, fine.

You want my answer? I do want that for Tabletop RPGs. I have yet to see a reason why TTRPGs does not include storygames as a subset of them, in the same way that Fantasy is a subset of Fiction.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1081793I think a good definition should be based on mechanics.

If your game entirely, or heavily relies on meta points that exist outside of the game it would be a story game.  Especially games that forces you out of your character and think what is best for the story.  Another especially for games that punishes the players either for playing well, or using energy by giving enemy npcs more energy.  This is a reasonable standard to start with.

That looks like it. However, I would add that there are degrees of "storygameness." to coin a phrase. When we were playtesting the Buffy rules, I asked the GM and game creator C.J. "who is making this decision" when I was using one of the points I had to change what was happening. He said that he realized that those points were somewhat problematic as to immersion but there was no way a mook, like the one I was playing, could survive in that game environment without them. And player-character mooks were necessary to replicate the franchise, which was the selling point of the game.
They were annoying but they didn't come up that often. I would call Cinematic Unisystem a somewhat storygame system.

Quote from: estar;1081935I hope it is clear by my examples, is that I am not creating stories for this characters but immersing myself in their background and personalities. I have a narrative I am following, no idea what will be the climax or denouement will be like. I just plan and react accordingly.

Yes, that is clear, and appreciated. Some of the most fun players I've ever had at my table were thespians who had the same attitude. (In a lot of ways it actually made planning on my part easier for a riveting story because they were usually a little more predictable and so setting up some good drama to see how they'd react was a touch easier.)

Is it also a fair statement then that the two goals are not mutually exclusive? Because that's what I was (EDIT: inferring) when you drew the distinction.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081934There is no such thing as a 'story game', it is a derogatory term used to slander games that Pundit does not like.  That is it, that is all.

Those that coined the term, created them, and spoke derogatorily of trad-RPGs would certainly disagree with you, but let's not let that get in the way of another chance to try to score points by slamming Pundit, shall we?

Quote from: kythri;1081945Those that coined the term, created them, and spoke derogatorily of trad-RPGs would certainly disagree with you, but let's not let that get in the way of another chance to try to score points by slamming Pundit, shall we?

...I'm on PUNDITS FORUM!  The only points I'd be scoring would be in the NEGATIVES.  Why are you trying to score points WITH him by attacking me?

I don't dislike Pundit, I DISAGREE with some of his stances.  That's it.

And just because someone people want to make up terms to separate themselves from D&D, doesn't change the fact that the point of the game is to play a role, hence a ROLE PLAYING GAME.  The mechanics as to HOW it happens are irrelevant.

Mmmkay, cupcake.

Just because I take on the role of a real estate speculator and property developler doesn't make Monopoly an RPG.

Likewise, a storygame, defined by it's creators as not an RPG, but a game dedicated to creating a story, is not an RPG.  A game that calls itself an RPG, but is, in reality, a storygame, is not an RPG.

Certainly, the two share some mechanics, but an RPG having a storygame mechanic does not make an RPG a storygame, and a storygame having an RPG mechanic does not make it an RPG.

Your insinuation that Pundit coined the term, and your statements that it's used to slander games he doesn't like is the issue I take - no attempt to toady up to Pundit in that.  You make a lot of bullshit statements and outright lies, and I'm calling you on it.

Quote from: kythri;1081950Mmmkay, cupcake.

I'm the one who started that, pumpkin.  It just makes me smile.

Quote from: kythri;1081950Just because I take on the role of a real estate speculator and property developler doesn't make Monopoly an RPG.

Likewise, a storygame, defined by it's creators as not an RPG, but a game dedicated to creating a story, is not an RPG.  A game that calls itself an RPG, but is, in reality, a storygame, is not an RPG.

Certainly, the two share some mechanics, but an RPG having a storygame mechanic does not make an RPG a storygame, and a storygame having an RPG mechanic does not make it an RPG.

Your insinuation that Pundit coined the term, and your statements that it's used to slander games he doesn't like is the issue I take - no attempt to toady up to Pundit in that.  You make a lot of bullshit statements and outright lies, and I'm calling you on it.

The hell are you going on about?  You clearly have no idea what Monopoly is about.  It was a Capitalism simulator, by a Marxist to show the 'evils' of it. OF COURSE A REAL ESTATE SPECULATOR WON'T GET IT.  It's not about them.

I do have a question however, what is the benefit in separating styles of RPGs, other than to accuse others of playing the 'Wrong' game?  Because that's all this talk of RPGs and Story Games always lead to.

I'm honestly trying to figure out what other benefit there would to splitting the hobby, yet again.