Quote from: soviet;566820OK, but storygames also focus on the playing of individual characters whose actions are adjudicated by a referee. Burning Wheel has that just as much as Pathfinder or 4e does.

Then why are you calling it a storygame?

Quote from: silva;566796If thats the case, why not create a new word for your specific definition ? I mean, roleplaying already have a very clear definition - the act of playing a role. Add a "game" to that and you have a "game where you play a role". Simple. Isnt it more logical to invent a new term/word for the specific style of roleplaying game you guys mention here, instead of trying to impose a new meaning on something already stablished ?

(I suggest something in the line of "Simulation-Roleplaying" or just "Sim-Roleplaying". Games like D&D could even be called Combat-Roleplaying, since all its rules originate from combat. What do you think ? )

Yes, One of my biggest issues about the term is that it had a definition BEFORE these games game out, one used heavily.  And your definition, while not incorrect, is also incomplete.  Both in psychology and in acting, the success of a roleplay was clearly determined by the ability to immerse with the role and to be the role...specifically removing outside influences.

Quote from: estar;566824Then why are you calling it a storygame?

If Burning Wheel isn't a storygame, what is? Dogs in the Vineyard? Sorcerer? HeroQuest? FATE?

Discussion of any of these games here would be relegated to the other games forum. They are exactly the sort of games that pundit rails against. If your definition of storygames covers party games like Once Upon a Time and Baron Munchausen but excludes all the actual storygame RPGs that people play and talk about such as the ones mentioned above, then it's no wonder we're talking past each other.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566832Yes, One of my biggest issues about the term is that it had a definition BEFORE these games game out, one used heavily.  And your definition, while not incorrect, is also incomplete.  Both in psychology and in acting, the success of a roleplay was clearly determined by the ability to immerse with the role and to be the role...specifically removing outside influences.

By the account of Old Geezer, Gygax and his group didn't give two shits about immersion.

Quote from: soviet;566834By the account of Old Geezer, Gygax and his group didn't give two shits about immersion.

I'm talking about definitions, and how peolpe use them.
I don't give two shits about what Gary though about the term compared to something that was not invented yet.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566838I'm talking about definitions, and how peolpe use them.
I don't give two shits about what Gary though about the term compared to something that was not invented yet.

I wasn't talking about the term. I was talking about the mode of play.

Quote from: soviet;566833If Burning Wheel isn't a storygame, what is? Dogs in the Vineyard? Sorcerer? HeroQuest? FATE?

Discussion of any of these games here would be relegated to the other games forum. They are exactly the sort of games that pundit rails against. If your definition of storygames covers party games like Once Upon a Time and Baron Munchausen but excludes all the actual storygame RPGs that people play and talk about such as the ones mentioned above, then it's no wonder we're talking past each other.

Your reply has nothing to do with answering my question.

Why are YOU calling Burning Wheels a storygame? When you read Burning Wheels what made you think "This book describes a storygame."

Quote from: estar;566846Your reply has nothing to do with answering my question.

Why are YOU calling Burning Wheels a storygame? When you read Burning Wheels what made you think "This book describes a storygame."

Because although the mode of play is 'players pretend to be their characters' the goal of play is 'actively create a story about those characters'. This is represented by stuff like: setting the stakes of failure, defining things like personality traits and relationships in the game rules, actively thinking about 'what would be most dramatic', the GM setting moral dilemmas for the characters, and some elements of group worldbuilding.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566832Yes, One of my biggest issues about the term is that it had a definition BEFORE these games game out, one used heavily.  And your definition, while not incorrect, is also incomplete.  Both in psychology and in acting, the success of a roleplay was clearly determined by the ability to immerse with the role and to be the role...specifically removing outside influences.

A historical aside; the use of roleplaying to describe the type of game Dungeons & Dragons represented wasn't without dispute. It just proved to be most popular out of the alternatives.

One of the points brought up was about  immersion. That many gamers playing D&D didn't immerse themselves in the game. Rather played the characters as an extension of themselves adventuring in the gameworld.

I need to find where I read that. It was an interesting piece of writing looking into the early days of the hobby.

Quote from: soviet;566847Because although the mode of play is 'players pretend to be their characters' the goal of play is 'actively create a story about those characters'. This is represented by stuff like: setting the stakes of failure, defining things like personality traits and relationships in the game rules, actively thinking about 'what would be most dramatic', the GM setting moral dilemmas for the characters, and some elements of group worldbuilding.

Are you talking about Burning Wheel or Burning Empires?  Unless the Gold Edition added a bunch of stuff, a lot of the things you are referring to there are not specifically mechanical additions, even though they are addressed in the author's sidebar comments.

Quote from: soviet;566847Because although the mode of play is 'players pretend to be their characters' the goal of play is 'actively create a story about those characters'. This is represented by stuff like: setting the stakes of failure, defining things like personality traits and relationships in the game rules, actively thinking about 'what would be most dramatic', the GM setting moral dilemmas for the characters, and some elements of group worldbuilding.

Stakes of Failure are clearly metagame mechanics. A character is not going around thinking about what the Stakes of Failure are going to be in a mechanical sense.

Defining Personality Traits and Relationships are not metagame mechanics. They define the character in more detail.

Actively thinking about what 'would be most dramatic' is a metagame mechanic. Character would not be going around thinking to themselves "What is going to the most dramatic way I can spend my day?"

The GM setting moral dilemmas for players has been part of RPGs since the earliest days. I was doing that in high school circa 1980 with AD&D 1st edition. It not a metagame mechanic but one of the many things referees do.

Group worldbuilding is not always metagaming especially if it occurs before the start of play. It is metagaming if something the referee has to go along with during the course of play. "The witches cottage looks like this!" Bob said. as opposed to "Hey Bob, can you draw up the Witches Cottage for me while i deal with Tim trying to steal the Carnifex Jewel."

I am not seeing much here that make Burning Wheel a Storygame. Yes it has a metagame mechanic but that not enough in of itself to make it a storygame.

The vague area to me is the part about "Actively thinking about what 'would be most dramatic'". Does Burning Wheel provide mechanics for this? And do they form a major part of campaigns and sessions using Burning Wheel? If I sat down at the table, am I going to be thinking about what my character is going to be do? Or am I going to spend most of my time trying to come up with Dramatic moments for the session/campaign.

Quote from: soviet;566834By the account of Old Geezer, Gygax and his group didn't give two shits about immersion.

That's actually incorrect. They didn't give two shits about stuff like characterization and character motivations over player choices, but these are different things from immersion, which is "seeing yourself in situation". You can immerse yourself in the situation and role play yourself in the hypothetical without giving a shit about pretending to be someone else in your mind's eye. This is radically different from pretending to be a co-author building a story from a bird's eye POV, which they definitely did not do: I asked Gary Gygax about this specifically on at least two different occasions and the answer was consistent. To him the "story" in a RPG was "the stuff you could tell people in real life AFTER the game was played and done." He actually had a few choice words for what he considered "thespies" in his usual humourous way.

Quote from: Benoist;566857That's actually incorrect. They didn't give two shits about stuff like characterization and character motivations over player choices, but these are different things from immersion, which is "seeing yourself in situation". You can immerse yourself in the situation and role play yourself in the hypothetical without giving a shit about pretending to be someone else in your mind's eye.

So they didnt assume an actual character role, then ? Weird.

Do you consider this an roleplaying game ?

Quote from: Benoist;566677How would you present a linear adventure in writing so that it does not turn into a railroad?

Most linear adventures are presented as scene-scene-scene-conclusion; these tend to lead to railroading because of the necessity of transitioning from scene to scene. I think this is a consequence of trying to impose a story structure on roleplaying games. (Fuck you, Doug Niles.)

Instead, I would present them as a timeline in which the antagonists are acting and the adventurers are free to respond, like in Operation: Ace of Clubs for Top Secret, or as a series of events to which the adventurers may or may not respond, like in Burned Bush Wells for Boot Hill, or the referee is given a slew of options for how the npcs react depending on what the adventurers do, like in "The Lady of La Rochelle" for Flashing Blades.

When you get away from trying to tell as story, then linear adventures can be constructed in such a way that they still lead from A to E but provide for meaningful player choices instead of hamfisted transitions between scenes or chapters.

Quote from: LordVreeg;566747I have always postulated the critical importance of meaningful player choice to really roleplay a long term game.  So my comments about prioritizing sandboxing in terms of this conversation, at least, can be boiled down to that goal; that the agency that changes a railroad into a mere linear-style adventure is Meaningful Player Choice.

Which is great and a goal I share, obviously, but bear in mind that a lot of people like running and playing linear adventures, so simply saying, well, you should run a sandbox instead doesn't really do anything except say to them, hey, u r dewng it rong.

Quote from: silva;566733(by the way, even on that thread the ONe-True-Wayism is present, when people start complaining that what I was running wasnt a true sandbox, but a improvisational game or whatever. Hmmm... I see a pattern here...  )

'Huh, I called a bicycle a tuning fork and now the one-true-wayists are telling me I'm wrong!'

Give me a fucking break.