Quote from: Benoist;565570My take on this: RPGs do not tell "stories"

That's an excellent explanation of the issue, I wish I had seen it when I first stumbled on the idea of "storygames" a couple of years back, would have saved myself a lot of hassle.

Basically roleplaying games are when you are the character, storygames are like a top down third person view of the game. Characters are pieces on a board, players operate many of them, and there is no GM effectively, since players are also involved in events beyond their characters' cognisance.

For me its not just the roleplaying that gets killed by storygaming, its surprise - its literally impossible to have surprise in storygames, and even if it were it wouldn't matter as you have far less attachment to your characters anyway. No surpise: no adventure, by definition.

I think its the fundamentally "godlike" perspective of storygames that attracts the kind of intensely self involved narccissistic sociopaths who adhere to these games. This also explains the shrieks whenever storygame threads are moved to "other games", a narccissistic sociopath would view that as a direct attack on their all-important self image of godlike status, relegating them to second stringers. The reality of course is that its just another friggin forum.

Well I've wandered a bit, but anyway that's my take on it.

Quote from: The Traveller;565571That's an excellent explanation of the issue, I wish I had seen it when I first stumbled on the idea of "storygames" a couple of years back, would have saved myself a lot of hassle.

Basically roleplaying games are when you are the character, storygames are like a top down third person view of the game. Characters are pieces on a board, players operate many of them, and there is no GM effectively, since players are also involved in events beyond their characters' cognisance.

For me its not just the roleplaying that gets killed by storygaming, its surprise - its literally impossible to have surprise in storygames, and even if it were it wouldn't matter as you have far less attachment to your characters anyway. No surpise: no adventure, by definition.

I think its the fundamentally "godlike" perspective of storygames that attracts the kind of intensely self involved narccissistic sociopaths who adhere to these games. This also explains the shrieks whenever storygame threads are moved to "other games", a narccissistic sociopath would view that as a direct attack on their all-important self image of godlike status, relegating them to second stringers. The reality of course is that its just another friggin forum.

Well I've wandered a bit, but anyway that's my take on it.

If "you are the character" in an RPG, then it's still a story, but the viewpoint is first-person rather than third-person. The first-person perspective allows the character (and the player) to experience events realistically as they unfold, which makes all the difference between an RPG and a "storygame."

Does that even make any sense? I've been fighting insomnia all fucking night. And losing. Now it's damn near dawn and I haven't slept. Hell with it.

Quote from: Ladybird;565561I won't claim that I agree with every thread move relating to this subject, but I have no interest in making a big issue about it. Looks to me like Dan's just trying to start a discussion.

Indeed. I apologize if this is the wrong forum. I wasn't quite sure where this should be posted. I definitely didn't intend to violate any rules and have no objections if the Mods want to move it.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;565577If "you are the character" in an RPG, then it's still a story, but the viewpoint is first-person rather than third-person. The first-person perspective allows the character (and the player) to experience events realistically as they unfold, which makes all the difference between an RPG and a "storygame."

Does that even make any sense? I've been fighting insomnia all fucking night. And losing. Now it's damn near dawn and I haven't slept. Hell with it.

Actually, that makes perfect sense. In fact, it's something I've been saying for quite some time.

My only quibble is that I'm not sure seeing events unfold from a first-person perspective truly counts as making a "story", exactly... Otherwise, anything anybody experiences is an exercise in storytelling.

Put another way: You can tell the story of what happened, but that doesn't mean the happening itself was a story.

Does THAT make sense? It's early at the moment here as well.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;565586Actually, that makes perfect sense. In fact, it's something I've been saying for quite some time.

My only quibble is that I'm not sure seeing events unfold from a first-person perspective truly counts as making a "story", exactly... Otherwise, anything anybody experiences is an exercise in storytelling.

Put another way: You can tell the story of what happened, but that doesn't mean the happening itself was a story.

Does THAT make sense? It's early at the moment here as well.

Makes perfect sense.  It's exactly how it was explained to me by flyingmice and Pundit back in the day, and meshed well with the kind of games I like to play and run.

In H&H's GM chapter, I describe it as the difference between plot, and premise.

A good RPG doesn't have a "plot" from the outset.  It has a premise.  A scenario.  A set of pieces stood up on the board that the players then interact with as they will.  

A good old-fashioned dungeon works so well because it's the most elemental embodiment of this principle.  Even if there's some goal in mind, that is, at most, going to amount to a particular room the players must get to or survive, with perhaps others intertwined with its fate, but how they get there and the path they take is entirely on the players, and there's no "plot" or "story" behind it save what can be constructed after the fact from the events that emerge.

To be fair, most storygames don't necessarily have a "plot" either. The story is a post-facto deal. If anything, uncle Ron's outfit arose initially as a reaction to the rampant railroading born of the dysfunctional marriage between pretensions of storytelling and traditional RPG systems that we saw in the 1990s.

To me it's all a big ol' Internet pissing match between neckbeards and hipsters, each insulted at the others' idea of fun, and fighting over the label "RPG" (a hobby that's argüably the geekiest out there, except maybe for wargaming. Even much-maligned model trains got featured on Big Bang Theory). If at any time there was the "threat" the Ron & the Forge's theories would become "dominant" and "destroy" (or change irrevocably) the hobby, that time is in the past.

But by all means, keep tooting that horn. The people at grognards.txt need something to write about, and I'd rather they had something other than racism and homophobia to write about.

Quote from: The Butcher;565652But by all means, keep tooting that horn. The people at grognards.txt need something to write about, and I'd rather they had something other than racism and homophobia to write about.

Those fuckers never quote me.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;565577If "you are the character" in an RPG, then it's still a story, but the viewpoint is first-person rather than third-person. The first-person perspective allows the character (and the player) to experience events realistically as they unfold, which makes all the difference between an RPG and a "storygame."

It's possible for the player to play their character either in the first person (e.g., "I attack the orc!") and third person (e.g., "My character attacks the orc!") and possible for the players to move their characters around on a sketch or map grid from a third person perspective but what they all share in a traditional role-playing game is that the player's scope of control is deciding what their character decides to do and their window on the events in the same setting is what their character experiences.  I don't think I'd use "first person" and "third person" here to describe that.

As for the "it's still a story" argument, one can describe a roller coaster ride as travel from point A to point B but they'd likely miss the entire point of a roller coaster ride in the process if they focus on the destination.

So when you guys say storytelling game you mean like AD&D 1e, right?

Quote from: The Butcher;565652If at any time there was the "threat" the Ron & the Forge's theories would become "dominant" and "destroy" (or change irrevocably) the hobby, that time is in the past.

I won't be convinced it's past until D&D 4e is out of print and we're sure 5e doesn't repeat the same mistakes.  The 5e design team is still making Forge-like noises so maybe it's not dead yet.

Quote from: Gib;565657So when you guys say storytelling game you mean like AD&D 1e, right?

They mean AD&D 2e.  You need to pay more attention to the 2e hate threads.

I love these conversations.

Have you checked around the hobby lately? Most GMs of 'traditional' RPGs are frustrated novelist shit heads who plot out the entire story arc of every campaign and adventure in advance. They design villains and quests and create set-piece fights and narrowly constrain outcomes. There is far more obsession with 'story' amongst D&D players in the modern age than there is amongst people at story-games.

Blame Dragonlance, blame 2nd edition or whatever, but it's been the state of play in traditional RPGs since at the very least 1989. Anybody who claims that story games are not RPGs because they are "about stories rather than about the game" has had their head up their own arse for at least 23 years.

Personally, I don't get the point in even talking about it. The best games have been a mix of narrative, simulationist, and gaming so it's hard to object to somebody who likes a different ratio in their mixture.

I have seen folks play Vampire with the most pretension and stupidity you can imagine. In fact, my first experience with it was a game where character generation took 2 sessions, at least I think it did, because I'm not even sure when the game began. I had to ask, has the game started yet? I just wasn't goth enough for that shit.

But then, I have played in a Vampire game recently that was every bit a dungeon crawl slugfest as any D&D I have ever played. Narrative was hardly important, and in fact in the last session we blew up a bar and TPK'd by crashing our big ass buick into a house filled with werewolves. We just drove that bitch right through the front window and went down swinging and cursing.

The games I remember from my old school, had fights that were meaningful because the bad guys had hurt my character in some way. Were we sitting around developing our characters into fleshed out 3D things? No, they were still pretty much bloodthirsty reavers, but when the fights meant something personal was when the game was really memorable...which is the best indication of fun IMO.

I can understand the hipster hate, and I shook my head and was annoyed at White Wolf's Gen Con booths most years, but it's really difficult to see how some of the games are listed as "story games." WEG d6? WTF?! How is that a story game, and Amber isn't?

In the end, I think what is important is HOW you play, not what you play. And I am all in favor of calling out and expelling hipster douche-bags from my hobby.

Quote from: The Butcher;565652The people at grognards.txt need something to write about,

I just know I'm going to regret asking this, but...

the fuck is grognards.txt? I see it mentioned a lot, and I've gathered it has something to do with Something Awful. Other than that... no clue.

So, anyone up for a quick recap? You know, just for us newbs?

Quote from: Gib;565655Those fuckers never quote me.

Needs moar racism, and maybe homophobia.

Quote from: John Morrow;565658I won't be convinced it's past until D&D 4e is out of print

Isn't it already?

Quote from: John Morrow;565658and we're sure 5e doesn't repeat the same mistakes.  The 5e design team is still making Forge-like noises so maybe it's not dead yet.

They don't need to read a single line of Forge text to repeat the mistakes of 4e; all they have to do is to listen to the 4e fans.