D&D has been a Game of Stories since 1974.

It just depended on the group and the GM.  Some people played to have a "fictional reality" like what Benoist is describing.  Others wanted to play grand epics like Arthur's saga or LotR and others wanted more player empowerment, movie-experience where their characters were the stars of a movie and pretty much destined to win.

The entire success of OD&D and AD&D was because DM and players developed a story together through play.  

Never give "story game" to the Forgies.  Never.  

Its as absurd as giving "RPG" to the video game companies.

Every time I play OD&D, CoC, Trav, WFRP, Rifts or whatever, I am engaging in an interactive story telling game.

And don't confuse "story" with literature.   Story is just "characters making decisions with consequences or rewards"

Quote from: Spinachcat;401518D&D has been a Game of Stories since 1974.

For some people, sure, you are right, the difference I am seeing being that the "story" paradigm is becoming or already is the default assumption under which RPGs like 4E and Pathfinder are written and designed now, which was not the case with OD&D or AD&D.

Quote from: Spinachcat;401518The entire success of OD&D and AD&D was because DM and players developed a story together through play.

To some people, you included, for sure. Not in general, no. I for one would say that it allowed me to be a hero exploring dungeons and fantasy worlds of our imagination the time of a game session, which is not predicated on the idea of story, but actuality. There is a nuance here that some will refute, or simply discard, but there are also some like myself who see this as an important nuance. One of the differences then between then and now is that then, we would both have been right, and the game was inclusive of many takes on role playing and game styles, whereas now games like PF and 4E have chosen a squarely narrativist-gamist definition of what the game is and isn't that antagonizes people with my inclinations. The focus sharpened, and ends up killing the fun of the game for people like me.

When Ben talks about narrative control, and story, what he means is not that our characters don't set out to the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief with the intent to slay him and stop a giant invasion.  That's exactly what we are doing.

What Ben is talking about is that when evrything is said and done, we will be able to talk about what happened and tell stories about it, about how the Paladin held the line while the Cleric healed the Fighter, etc...  

It's all about player intent.  A storygame is almost like 4th wall gaming.  If I go in knowing I want to tell a specific story, and can alter the gameworld to affect that story through some metagaming resource like Fate points, then I'm moving away from simulating a world to simulating a novel, comic, whatever.  I'm moving away from roleplaying toward storygaming.  

Storygaming Example = Using a Fate/Action Point whatever to "edit" the world, like I'm Neo in the Matrix.  The bad guys are following me into a dead end alleyway.  But wait, I spend a Narrative resource point and find a crumbling hole in a wall I didn't see before.  Now I can escape, but to pay the price for editing the hole, I cut myself going through it and now the bad guys can follow me better.

Roleplaying example= Let the dice fall where they may, DM fudge or have something like Luck points, which let a player reroll.  That's about as metagamey as a Traditional RPG will get.

Do I think 4e incorporates more narrative elements? Certainly.  Do I think it is going to become a storygame?  I doubt it, Essentials seems like they're already realizing they need to tone it down some.

WFRP3 on the other hand, is much more narratively inspired.

Quote from: Spinachcat;401518D&D has been a Game of Stories since 1974.

There's no evidence of this. At a later date, perhaps, yes. But there's no need to distort the record to make your point.

Is Arkham Horror a story game?

Quote from: Benoist;401500No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "narrative" in an RPG, to me.

I would say that a plot is a "narrative." Moreover, a story can be (or, actually, is) defined as: "an account of incidents or events." Doesn't say anything about it being predetermined or even coherent. Thus, in my estimation, even casual sandbox games have plots and stories: "We wander around and do shit."

That being the case, the players, their actions, and their choices affect the "narrative" even in "actual" roleplaying games.

Quote from: Benoist;401500Now my question would be: why? Why is it that 3e and 4e (notice I'm not discriminating between 4E and PF/3E here) are in no danger of becoming storygames? Which specific elements are missing, and really unlikely to happen, that would make them "storygames", in your opinion?

I'm not an expert in "storygames." I own some and have played them a time or two. Still, it seems to me that "storygames" have two elements: they're "meta conscious" and they conscious of their "meta outcomes."

By "meta conscious" I mean that they direct participant's focus to the process in a straightforward and deliberate fashion. Participants know, for example, that they're sitting down to build a story, completed with comments to the audience, about a Ghostbuster-esque organization when they play InSpectres. The game out and out says so.

By conscious of their "meta outcomes" I mean that the "storygame" uses it's text, mechanics, etc., to direct participants to a particular outcome or event. The game wants something of those who play it, whether that's a certain attitude toward their fellow players, certain types of situations, a certain mindset, or a particular resolution, it has a goal in mind.

In contrast, D&D doesn't deliberately direct players in the way "storygames" do. D&D players might focus on the game as an abstract entity, but that's incidental. And the best example of "meta outcomes" I can think of with D&D is having fun, winning, or being heroic.

Mechanics such as action points, which in 4e just provide an extra standard action, included, D&D doesn't approach itself like "storygames" do...

Seanchai

Story does not require a pre-defined arc.   It is true that most modern RPGs assume success for the heroes and that's the player mindset.   You sit down for an adventure and most likely you will win.  Sometimes not everyone survives, but victory is usual.

In 0e/1e/2e, there was a high chance of failure, but success/failure rate has nothing to do with story.  "We entered the dungeon, all got whacked and the Necromancer now rules the land" still a story.

"Life unfolding" is a story because its characters taking actions and experiencing the results of those actions.  

And regardless how impartial a GM, or how devoted to immersion or simulation, the GM still has huge narrative control.  It's the nature of RPGs.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401537There's no evidence of this. At a later date, perhaps, yes. But there's no need to distort the record to make your point.

There is 100% evidence.   Since the time when White Box was just Gygax's notes, his players made characters who were more than playing pieces who did things beyond the confines of a boardgame or wargame.   And those character altered, changed and developed histories as they continued in play.

Quote from: Spinachcat;401549There is 100% evidence.   Since the time when White Box was just Gygax's notes, his players made characters who were more than playing pieces who did things beyond the confines of a boardgame or wargame.   And those character altered, changed and developed histories as they continued in play.

You make it sound like these things are fundamentally predicated on the concept of "story" in RPGs, which to me is not the case at all. You can have characters who are more than playing pieces, who do things beyond the confines of boardgame and wargame, and alter, change and develop elements of the setting around them, including and not limited to their own identity and those of the characters and locales around them, without ever having such a thing as a "storytelling", "plots" and "narratives" in the game.

You do understand the difference I'm making between the notions of "narrative" and "actuality"/immersion in the game, don't you? The fundamental difference I'm making is between the player as the character (immersion/actuality) and the player considering the "narrative" in a bird's eye view, apart from the character in the game (narrative/story).

Sigh. Spinachcat, you need to reread CRKrueger's efforts at distinguishing narrative RPGs and traditional/immersive.

Ok, what Benoist is saying is that he may create a functioning world regarding the human nature and players can participate by lending themselves to some individuals (player characters) of that world.

The other way is where players could create parts of that functioning world that go beyond the power of a player character: the player decides for something beyond the PCs power in a simulationist kind of way. For example the PC may decide for another individual, for example an NPC, a faction or what.

Now, Benoist is wondering whether Essentials caters to the first situation instead of the second one which 4e seems to have been catering a bit with dailies and what not.

Is this what you are saying Benoist?

More or less, yeah. *nod*

That said, this kind of stuff is pretty old. Not 1974 old, but it does go back at least as far as Ars Magica's Whimsy Cards.

Even if you look at any particular instance of this type of mechanic and see (as with Whimsy Cards) that the GM has final say, it's still a way of concretizing, through mechanics or accessories, the idea of players having narrative input as players.

Some people like that stuff now and then, it always seems like a cute idea, and so companies make it. Whether they actually get used on a regular basis, is another thing.

Also, while I'm not familiar with Paizo's Gamemastery Guide, story-based GMing tactics have been in GMing notes in games for ages. People ignored them or used them as they wished.

And that's really the thing. Maybe I'm too far removed but it sounds to me like PF and D&D 4-dot-mumble are pretty robust with or without the player narrative control add-ons and with or without story-path-type GMing. So no, they aren't becoming storygames, although maybe some people who like story-game-stuff will be happy to see it included as options.

EDIT: (forgot the conclusion) It's not like the games where you really can't play the game at all while just playing your character.

Quote from: Seanchai;401547I
I'm not an expert in "storygames." I own some and have played them a time or two. Still, it seems to me that "storygames" have two elements: they're "meta conscious" and they conscious of their "meta outcomes."

By "meta conscious" I mean that they direct participant's focus to the process in a straightforward and deliberate fashion. Participants know, for example, that they're sitting down to build a story, completed with comments to the audience, about a Ghostbuster-esque organization when they play InSpectres. The game out and out says so.

By conscious of their "meta outcomes" I mean that the "storygame" uses it's text, mechanics, etc., to direct participants to a particular outcome or event. The game wants something of those who play it, whether that's a certain attitude toward their fellow players, certain types of situations, a certain mindset, or a particular resolution, it has a goal in mind.

In contrast, D&D doesn't deliberately direct players in the way "storygames" do. D&D players might focus on the game as an abstract entity, but that's incidental. And the best example of "meta outcomes" I can think of with D&D is having fun, winning, or being heroic.


Seanchai

Not a bad description.
Meta consious.  OK.

Quote from: CRKrueger;401530WFRP3 on the other hand, is much more narratively inspired.

Very much so. Jay Little, the head designer, is a fan of GNS and Ron Edwards. As soon as that came to light i knew that my chances of writing for WFRP under the new regime was close to zero. Considering what has been done to it, i'm pretty glad, all things considered.

AFAICT, everything the players in my group do is still either in light of their character's personality or whatever is most entertaining for the moment, even in games where fate points/bennies or other player-narrative subsystems are implemented, and I see very little regard for any overarching story or plot.

I have, on occasion with games that involve small amounts of player narrative input (and some that don't), held OOC discussions about where the campaign is "moving" towards and taken player input (an entire session was changed around last minute due to a single player's input -- to great effect), but those discussions were apart from the system, and I don't find there's anything inherent in 4e or other games that give the players a small economy of points to play with that makes it anymore a story-game.

Now if the core rules allowed for player purchasing of specific scenes, NPCs, etc., with an explicit mechanical system, then I'd think maybe it was moving towards the story side of things.  But for right now it seems to sit squarely in the GM-driven adventure-path type mode, with the players reacting to situations/plot via their characters.