Quote from: noisms;566467Thanks.

I've played In A Wicked Age too, and I understand your feeling about it (though it wouldn't lead me to class it as "not an RPG"), but I've only played it a little bit. And In A Wicked Age is somewhat unique in that you're not really supposed to identify with the character - chances are you won't be the same character from session to session - it's very 'meta' in that sense.

It is, but that lack of identification prevents the character being yours, which is a thing I am quite keen on.

QuoteA lot of "story games" aren't like that. Apocalypse World, for instance, assumes you are the same character each session, and in my experience in that game I identified even more with my character than I have done playing D&D or Call of Cthulu or whatever. I'd say the same about Burning Wheel or Blood & Honour too.

Personally, I wouldn't class Apocalypse World or 3:16 as storygames, I'd class them as RPG's. I am also aware that few here would agree with me.

I do sometimes wonder whether we're all objecting to the same thing.

QuoteEDIT: For some reason I didn't read your last sentence. I find it interesting you put it down to winning and losing, rather than finding out what happens. It seems to me that both story games and tradition RPGs can either be about winning and losing, or finding out happens, or both. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two, except maybe that some story games have a more explicit end point. (Certainly not all, though.)

Sure. I fully buy into the "if you had fun, you won" logic that various older books presented; and while you're just playing your guy, what happens isn't really personal. I mean, I certainly prefer to see my guy succeed than to see them lose, but if the evening was fun then I'm happy.

By framing the conflicts as being directly between two characters, though, IAWA makes conflicts directly personal, and the choice of traits used is an important one. It frames how you think about the scene, so as to not cut off your best traits. And while that's somewhat appropriate - a character with For Others d12, for example, is obviously going to be quite selfless, and be better when he can use that trait - having to think in game terms breaks my character immersion.

Quote from: Benoist;566468It's the same principle here. But that said, I actually do have an extensive experience with storytelling games since I am a fan of White Wolf games and have been very much into the "artsy storytelling" approach to the game in the first half of the 90s,

You know all about Forge-style games because at least 17 years ago, you played games like the one Ron Edwards specifically wrote an essay about to say was badly-designed and not the kind of game he wanted to make.

I have extensive experience with punk rock because in 1967, I was a huge Genesis fan. Furthermore,

Quote from: noisms;566471Weren't you saying you would enjoy playing Fiasco earlier in the thread? Now its shit? Make up your mind, for goodness' sake.

FUCK. ME. Are you totally retarded?

I don't only play trad RPGs ever. I like to play other games too, like say snakes and ladder, monopoly, Chess, whatever! I could play storygames too and maybe like them on their own merits. They're just not role playing games. And in THIS context here, storygames make for shit role playing games, as a matter of fact, like Chess would make for a shitty role playing game as well, though it is a game which, played as, you know, CHESS, I actually love.

Is that too complicated for you, this "context" thing, or should I explain it slower?

Quote from: noisms;566471Nobody is crying, moaning, pointing the finger, or laughing.

Actually you are, by constantly talking about how we're delusional, insane, etc.

Quote from: noisms;566471I just think it's utterly bizarre that people can express so much hatred and vitriol about something they know nothing about, and which merely has the temerity to be very very very much like a pastime they love, but ever so slightly different from it.

See? You're doing it right here.

Start by taking your head out of your ass and then maybe we can exchange some POVs.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566455I'm going to take the rest of your post as a demonstrative warning to eat less fast food.

I've no idea what you're talking about, I was using the conversation to punctuate the steps in my sushi production. Its a rare snack, sushi, very few others require the same degree of hand eye coordination. Its important too, those knives are extremely sharp.

Wait wait hold the phone. You're trying to tell me that somewhere out there are several people sweating into their computers, paying close enough attention to this thread while conversing as to its content that they were actually able to track back my comment and interpret it for you?

I'm sorry this thread is taking up so much of yours and theirs time, it must really be really eating into your hectic party schedule. Fuck. I mean Buddhism aside, how much life do any of you have left? Have you considered the valuable things you could be doing while you were all chortling at a dead liquid crystal display? When did you last call your mother?

Speaking of eating into things, my miso soup is done so er, yanno.

Quote from: silva;566470Hey Noisms, do you really think Apocalypse World is a storygame? I wouldnt call it "trad", sure, but also wouldnt stretch it so far as to call it a "storygame". I dont remember seeing any "narrative sharing" rules or "drama points" on it. Care to elaborate ?

Well, this is why I think the distinction is really silly. I should make it clear that I am only using terms like "traditional" and "story game" for the purposes of clarity.

In reality, it's a spectrum. Apocalypse World is more towards the middle than, say, Fiasco is, sure. It's probably still a "story game", though, because I think play revolves around what is narratively interesting.

What I mean by that is, in D&D dice rolls tell you whether a given action succeeds or fails. You then deal with the consequences.

In Apocalypse World, the dice roll tells you whether a given action succeeds or fails but forces you to give the result a narrative consequence.

For instance, in D&D, if you are trying to open a locked door, you might roll the dice to see if you can pick the lock. If you succeed, you get the door open and see what is behind. If you fail, you can't unlock it, so you then start to think about alternatives (breaking down the door, going somewhere else, etc.). This may involve further dice rolls, depending on what action the players take. If there is a monster behind the door, it might hear or it might not - again it depends on the dice rolls and what precautions the players are taking.

In Apocalypse World, you would roll the dice, and the result would immediately create a narrative consequence and a conflict - for instance, you open the door, but make a noise and a monster comes; or you open the door, and what's more you do it completely silently; or you fail to open the door, and make a noise so whatever is behind it hears you. Whatever the dice result, there is always an immediate narrative consequence.

Does that make things a bit clearer? The best I can explain it is that in D&D, what happens makes sense in terms of game logic, whereas in Apocalypse World, what happens makes sense in terms of story logic.

Quote from: Benoist;566476FUCK. ME. Are you totally retarded?

I don't only play trad RPGs ever. I like to play other games too, like say snakes and ladder, monopoly, Chess, whatever! I could play storygames too and maybe like them on their own merits. They're just not role playing games. And in THIS context here, storygames make for shit role playing games, as a matter of fact, like Chess would make for a shitty role playing game as well, though it is a game which, played as, you know, CHESS, I actually love.

Is that too complicated for you, this "context" thing, or should I explain it slower?

It's not complicated at all, it's just really stupid. I think, in your heart of hearts, you know this. You know that the distinction between story games and RPGs, if there is one, is incredibly fine to the point at which there really is no point getting worked up about it. You know that the gulf between In A Wicked Age and D&D is nothing like the gulf between D&D and chess, and that it is a really asinine analogy.

At least, I hope you know it. I know you won't admit it, though.

QuoteSee? You're doing it right here.

Start by taking your head out of your ass and then maybe we can exchange some POVs.

Really, let's not be silly, shall we? I'm not the one who is saying "I don't have to eat shit to know it's shit" and refusing to even play something before I declare it "not an RPG". Who actually has his head up his own ass, Benoist?

Dont know, I think I disagree with you on the Apocalypse World subject, Noisms.

See, what you call "story-logic" in the context of Apocalypse World, I consider normal in-game logic - the players cant simply produce elements from thin air to accomodate the results in the roll. It would be "story-logic" if it was like, say, Houses of the Blooded, where you can narrate whatever you want from thin air, and it gets accepted in-game.

Did it make sense ?

Quote from: Ladybird;566472It is, but that lack of identification prevents the character being yours, which is a thing I am quite keen on.

Personally, I wouldn't class Apocalypse World or 3:16 as storygames, I'd class them as RPG's. I am also aware that few here would agree with me.

Well, I would as well. I'd class them ALL as RPGs - any game in which you play a role is an RPG, in my book. Apparently that's just crazy talk, though.

QuoteI do sometimes wonder whether we're all objecting to the same thing.

Sure. I fully buy into the "if you had fun, you won" logic that various older books presented; and while you're just playing your guy, what happens isn't really personal. I mean, I certainly prefer to see my guy succeed than to see them lose, but if the evening was fun then I'm happy.

By framing the conflicts as being directly between two characters, though, IAWA makes conflicts directly personal, and the choice of traits used is an important one. It frames how you think about the scene, so as to not cut off your best traits. And while that's somewhat appropriate - a character with For Others d12, for example, is obviously going to be quite selfless, and be better when he can use that trait - having to think in game terms breaks my character immersion.

I don't disagree with any of that. As I said, I just don't think it makes the game not-an-RPG. It's a game in which you're playing a role. The role may be more attenuated from you than it is in D&D, but it's still a role and you're still playing it.

Quote from: silva;566484Dont know, I think I disagree with you there Noisms, on the Apocalypse World subject.

See, what you call "story-logic" in the context of Apocalypse World, I consider in-game logic - you cant simply produce elements from thin air to accomodate the results in the roll. It would be "story-logic" if it was like, say, Houses of the Blooded, where you can narrate what you want from thin air, and it gets accepted in-game.

Did I make sense ?

I think that goes on in AW too, doesn't it? I don't have the rule book here, so I forget the phrasing, but the GM does basically produce elements from thin air to accommodate results, doesn't he?

Quote from: noisms;566483It's not complicated at all, it's just really stupid. I think, in your heart of hearts, you know this. You know that the distinction between story games and RPGs, if there is one, is incredibly fine to the point at which there really is no point getting worked up about it. You know that the gulf between In A Wicked Age and D&D is nothing like the gulf between D&D and chess, and that it is a really asinine analogy.

Actually, I think it's the reverse: you know in your hearts of hearts that there is a fundamental difference between storygames and role playing games, but for some reason I cannot fathom, this threatens your own sense of identity to the core and makes you go nuts raging at the mouth flamewaring away at the infidels because they're WRONG and they should be told as much.



At least, I hope you know it. I know you won't admit it, though.

Quote from: noisms;566483Really, let's not be silly, shall we? I'm not the one who is saying "I don't have to eat shit to know it's shit" and refusing to even play something before I declare it "not an RPG". Who actually has his head up his own ass, Benoist?

Call me when you're done with the strawmen. I specifically said in the Fiasco thread that I would play a storygame, that I'm not opposed to the notion of playing such games at all, as a matter of fact, since I play any number of other games that are not role playing games in the first place.

The silly person here is you, who somehow feels that me making the distinction between a role playing game and a storygame must be the end of the fucking world as we know it. Why that is... fuck if I know.

Quote from: Benoist;566490Actually, I think it's the reverse: you know in your hearts of hearts that there is a fundamental difference between storygames and role playing games, but for some reason I cannot fathom, this threatens your own sense of identity to the core and makes you go nuts raging at the mouth flamewaring away at the infidels because they're WRONG and they should be told as much.



At least, I hope you know it. I know you won't admit it, though.


Call me when you're done with the strawmen. I specifically said in the Fiasco thread that I would play a storygame, that I'm not opposed to the notion of playing such games at all, as a matter of fact, since I play any number of other games that are not role playing games in the first place.

The silly person here is you, who somehow feels that me making the distinction between a role playing game and a storygame must be the end of the fucking world as we know it. Why that is... fuck if I know.

Well, we could go back and forth forever, couldn't we? I for one just cannot be arsed.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;566466I still consider IAWA a RPG.

And that's why there's really no point in discussing the topic with you.  In order to classify IAWA as a RPG (and yes I've played it), your definition of roleplay has to be "some roleplay (more like 3rd person character design) was involved at some point in the storytelling process".

Ladybird has pretty much nailed the IAWA experience as being primarily metagame concerned more with the story then the actual roleplay of the characters, which is the whole point, it being a storygame concerned primarily with the mutual creation of a story.

It's textbook storygame, not an RPG, and someone not classifying IAWA as a storygame simply means their definition of RPG is so broad as to be meaningless, and probably including "Narrative Wargames" such as Inquisitor, a self-admitted non-RPG by GW.

Quote from: noisms;566486Well, I would as well. I'd class them ALL as RPGs - any game in which you play a role is an RPG, in my book. Apparently that's just crazy talk, though.

Since different games under your definition can deliver wildly different experiences, and be played for very different goals, your definition is broad to the point of not being a definition at all when used in a discussion of game theory and design.

It would be like trying to have a meaningful discussion on the hardware differences as a software platform between a smartphone, tablet, netbook, chromebook, desktop, laptop and blade server when you call them all "Computers" denying that there is any effective difference between them.

Not crazy, but silly in the best case, dishonest in the worst case.

I don't care either way about IaWA, but...

Fun Fact: Vincent Baker classifies IaWA as a 'story-game' rather than an RPG.

Aside:
I've been wondering if the divides we put between a lot of tabletop games when constructing communities is inefficient (including wargames and board-games).  You don't see structures similar to ours when you look at PC/video-game communities, despite the large number of game genres (however, genre blending is common and nobody really loses sleep over what a game calls itself anymore).

Quote from: Peregrin(however, genre blending is common and nobody really loses sleep over what a game calls itself anymore).

I remember there was some hot discussions about Diablo when it came out. Some people defended it as a RPG, while another people didnt.

But yeah, nothing approaches the degree of obssesion found in tabletop RPG forums.