Quote from: TrippyHippy;969668So now we are going to retrospectively go back and start labelling these games as being 'story games' when, in fact, they never sold themselves as such? Does this mean that any innovation or variation from old school D&D that promotes something akin to telling a story is also to be categorised as a 'different form' of game? For example, RuneQuest ditched classes because they were more narratively natural - does this make it a story game too? Heck, D&D5 had Backgrounds with associated personality rolls - does that make it a story game too?

The James Bond RPG is an RPG. That is the fact, and to say otherwise, precisely, IS a conceit.

Now I do draw a distinction with a game like Microscope, specifically because in this game you don't actually have to have players playing any role to make them work. The mechanics simply work as collaborative efforts to create stories. Role-playing can be used, but it's largely a by-product of the created narrative, not the other way round. That is a clear distinction. The rest of it, for games like Sorcerer, Fate, Apocalypse World, etc is just pure guff.

Now do you see why I don't make a distinction?  There's been elements of the supposedly 'both' sides of these labels since day one.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;969573I totally disagree with all these examples. They may lay claim to doing things differently to other RPGs, but they really aren't. Take games like Toon, Paranoia, Pendragon, Ars Magica, Prince Valiant, Over The Edge etc and you'll find they are all doing this sort of stuff already too. It's a conceit to claim that these new games are categorically different. They are 100% RPGs, with storytelling motifs.

Yeah I think the above labelling approach is the way to go - they're all RPGs, but some systems have more of a shared story telling emphasis, or have more OOC decisions to make re PC mechancis, and so on.

edit: I think if you have a GM, and players play PCs and interact with the GM, sometimes rolling dice to determine outcomes; you have an TRPG. I dont think there's much practical utility in trying to split this label further into subcategories of "traditional" RPGs, "story telling" games, or whatever (marketing and perceived product differentiation aside).

Quote from: rawma;969176Regarding decks of narrative affecting cards like Paizo's or TORG's, I think Whimsy Cards from Lion Rampant were the first.

The list at this link matches what I remember of them.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/cards/whimsycards.html

these are great

Incidentally, Nocturnal Games still produces Whimsy cards along with a number of card-based aids.

Quote from: AsenRG;969596Either way, the statement that simulationism is a Forge term is outright wrong;).

Yeah it was a bit of a rhetorical question designed to prompt a history lesson so I wouldn't have to Google it. I think I recall a simular distinction of playstyles by Niles in the Dungeoneers Guide?

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969738You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. It appears that TrippyHippy is a lame donkey who has died of dehydration.

Are you're obviously a pretentious cunt, so who wins?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969738You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. It appears that TrippyHippy is a lame donkey who has died of dehydration.

And you're a pretentious arsehole, so who wins?

Quote from: TrippyHippy;969668The James Bond RPG is an RPG. That is the fact, and to say otherwise, precisely, IS a conceit.

They are all RPGs.

I never said James Bond was a Storygame, similar to how I specifically said Fate, 2d20, etc were not Storygames.  However, they are RPGs with a fundamentally OOC type of mechanic, that not all RPGs have.  

Automobile is a useful term when differentiating a car from a truck or motorcycle.  It is a useless term when differentiating a Lamborghini from a Yugo or a Landrover.

For a Roleplaying Game, you kind of expect the [Game] element to be used while [Roleplaying].  There are games where that is true, there are games where, to a certain degree, that is untrue, and you use the game elements while not roleplaying the character.  Some of these are optional and easily removed, some of these are foundational and core to the system.

A lot of the newer games that contain these mechanics get hit with the "not an RPG" criticism.  "Not an RPG" really means "there is something about this game that doesn't feel like other RPGs I have played and I don't have the vocabulary to specify how exactly."

In the broader culture, RPG is a useless term as it covers everything from a Nintendo game, to collaborative fiction website, to bedroom play, to therapy technique, and everything in between.  In the tabletop gaming culture, it's become like automobile, useful for maybe telling the difference from a cardgame or boardgame, but that's about it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969745I never said James Bond was a Storygame, similar to how I specifically said Fate, 2d20, etc were not Storygames.  However, they are RPGs with a fundamentally OOC type of mechanic, that not all RPGs have.

Not every RPG needs this though. Point of example is with the implementation of Luck points, as a resource, in Call of Cthulhu 7E. It was implemented for 'narrative' design motives - to essentially stop investigative rolls bringing a game to a halt (apparently). However, as was pointed out in playtests, it actually robbed the game of a certain harsh coldness in the dice outcomes - which reflected the cold, materialistic horror of the setting. If you took a more heroic game like James Bond, or even a more anarchically silly game like Toon (that requires a degree of creative collaboration to make it work as a game, I'd argue), having story points and the like actually makes sense. They are still RPGs, but the genre or mode of play is designed differently to achieve a different effect.

In the automobile analogy a car may be designed for speed or for off-track driving, but they are still cars. A chiwowa and a St. Bernard are quite different, but they are still dogs (and able to breed!).

And sorry, there is really very little about Fate that I find is so radically different to D&D that we need to create a new category for it. They are both just RPGs. The words 'Plato' and 'footnotes' spring to mind.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;969753Not every RPG needs this though. Point of example is with the implementation of Luck points, as a resource, in Call of Cthulhu 7E. It was implemented for 'narrative' design motives - to essentially stop investigative rolls bringing a game to a halt (apparently). However, as was pointed out in playtests, it actually robbed the game of a certain harsh coldness in the dice outcomes - which reflected the cold, materialistic horror of the setting. If you took a more heroic game like James Bond, or even a more anarchically silly game like Toon (that requires a degree of creative collaboration to make it work as a game, I'd argue), having story points and the like actually makes sense. They are still RPGs, but the genre or mode of play is designed differently to achieve a different effect.

In the automobile analogy a car may be designed for speed or for off-track driving, but they are still cars. A chiwowa and a St. Bernard are quite different, but they are still dogs (and able to breed!).

And sorry, there is really very little about Fate that I find is so radically different to D&D that we need to create a new category for it. They are both just RPGs. The words 'Plato' and 'footnotes' spring to mind.

I suspect you don't find a difference simply because you don't find moving back and forth between IC and OOC decisions to be disruptive to the activity of playing what you call a "roleplaying game".  You're smart enough to know, however, that just because something doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Trust me, if when you were roleplaying you found switching between IC and OOC decisions to be disruptive to the experience, it would become trivially easy to see the difference.

I agree that if you want to play in a genre, then frequently the easiest and arguably best way to do that is through OOC mechanics to enforce genre.   However, then you're playing the game from a kind of 4th wall perspective where you're not just playing your character, you're playing your character who exists within a genre.  There's an OOC layer over the proceedings.  Some people don't care.  Some people do.  For the people that don't care, obviously the distinction of that metalayer being there or not doesn't matter.  For the people who do care, however, the distinction of that metalayer does.

Back in 2009, "Narrative" was practically a fighting word (for some reason on this site alone it seems, it always will be).  Everywhere else, even places like Reddit, you'll see people frequently say things like "It's a cool game, but pretty narrative, if you mind that sort of thing." and the next 400 posts aren't arguments over whether the game is narrative or not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969757Back in 2009, "Narrative" was practically a fighting word (for some reason on this site alone it seems, it always will be).  Everywhere else, even places like Reddit, you'll see people frequently say things like "It's a cool game, but pretty narrative, if you mind that sort of thing." and the next 400 posts aren't arguments over whether the game is narrative or not.

Well, the games themselves make up for it by waffling on about narrativism for 400 pages, rather than just outlining the rules and getting on with it. This is really the whole point to me. I've no problem with new rules, concepts or approaches in new games. I welcome it actually. What puts me off though is the self important arguments that several games still cling onto. Ron Edward's Sorcerer, for example had a neat little system and was well presented for a small press game - but shoving that "System Matters" essay in the reader's face was just a complete turn off.

I do note that some newer games, like Margaret Weiss' Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, eschewed from doing this - and this was appreciated. Some might not like the game, but they don't have to account this to people suggesting that it was because they don't like 'narrative games' or some variation on that theme, but rather that they simply just don't grok with that game.  

I also get irritated with the cohort of individuals who are always seeking to eradicate any notion of 'old school' in game design too. When Warhammer Fantasy 4th edition was announced, it was quickly established that the rules would be based on the original two percentile games. The number of online gamers that then rushed to suggest that percentiles and the 'simulationist' game design was outdated was frankly pathetic. And for that I blame the way in which this false distinction - and implied value system - has been borne out of gaming dialogue over the last couple of decades or so. I'd rather celebrate individual game design on their own merits, rather than categorising them into tribal distinctions.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;969762Well, the games themselves make up for it by waffling on about narrativism for 400 pages themselves, rather than just outlining the rules and getting on with it. This is really the whole point to me. I've no problem with new rules, concepts or approaches in new games. I welcome it actually. What puts me off though is the self important arguments that several games still cling onto. Ron Edward's Sorcerer, for example had a neat little system and was well presented for a small press game - but shoving that "System Matters" essay in the reader's face was just a complete turn off.

I do note that some newer games, like Margaret Weiss' Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, eschewed from doing this - and this was appreciated. Some might not like the game, but they don't have to account this to people suggesting that it was because they don't like 'narrative games' or some variation on that theme, but rather that they simply just don't grok with that game.  

I also get irritated with the cohort of individuals who are always seeking to eradicate any notion of 'old school' in game design too. When Warhammer Fantasy 4th edition was released, it was quickly established that the rules would be based on the original two percentile games. The number of online gamers that then rushed to suggest that percentiles and the 'simulationist' game design was outdated was frankly pathetic. And for that I blame the way in which this false distinction - and implied value system - has been borne out of gaming dialogue over the last couple of decades or so. I'd rather celebrate individual game design on their own merits, rather than categorising them into tribal distinctions.

Yeah, I see your point.  I mean there could be lots of reasons why someone didn't like MHR.  And assuming it's because of narrative reasons gets you the same place as assuming it's because it was a supers game.  You have to find out why, but that discussion as to why requires terms to use.  For example, Tim Kirk writes some pretty good games that have too much Narrativium for me personally.  He said about MHR there's enough difference between player and character to drive a battleship through.  He knew what the issue was.  It wasn't "narrative", he likes narrative.  It was the level of OOC in the mechanics.

I agree that a game should be judged on its merits, yet games do have structures and patterns.

Personally I think you're right in that the older forms of description as simulationist, narrativist or dramatist, gamist, are becoming less useful because games are blending different types of mechanics.  I think a much clearer distinction would be whether the game contains OOC mechanics and to what level, no matter the reason.  Whether it's to provide narrative control, tactical challenge, enforce genre, or some other reason, that's still a pretty good distinction to make I think.  Of course, saying this is a "genre rpg" has value, and other terms like "dissociated mechanics" are useful in discussion as well.  I think the key is focusing on the mechanics an RPG contains.

People who talk about mechanical worthiness based on age are just idiots regardless.  One man's "dated" is another man's "withstood the test of time" and one man's "innovative and groundbreaking" is another man's "gimmicky and untested".  Same thing with "elegant" vs. "simplistic", etc.  Some people are always going to posse up and dismiss the "dinosaur rpg" or "newschool darling".

Quote from: TrippyHippy;969753Not every RPG needs this though. Point of example is with the implementation of Luck points, as a resource, in Call of Cthulhu 7E. It was implemented for 'narrative' design motives - to essentially stop investigative rolls bringing a game to a halt (apparently). However, as was pointed out in playtests, it actually robbed the game of a certain harsh coldness in the dice outcomes - which reflected the cold, materialistic horror of the setting. If you took a more heroic game like James Bond, or even a more anarchically silly game like Toon (that requires a degree of creative collaboration to make it work as a game, I'd argue), having story points and the like actually makes sense. They are still RPGs, but the genre or mode of play is designed differently to achieve a different effect.

I certainly agree that Luck points don't belong in CoC but they're supremely easy to ignore. Most of 7e is very close to the core CoC mechanics and has a few basic changes that clean up a few small things in the older system like the pointless conversion of stats and a chartless contest roll to replace the old resistance chart. I had played CoC for so long I didn't even notice how pointless those mechanics were. The chase rules are a convoluted mess though. Odd as 5e D&D has excellent chase rules!

Quote from: Voros;969774I certainly agree that Luck points don't belong in CoC but they're supremely easy to ignore. Most of 7e is very close to the core CoC mechanics and has a few basic changes that clean up a few small things in the older system like the pointless conversion of stats and a chartless contest roll to replace the old resistance chart. I had played CoC for so long I didn't even notice how pointless those mechanics were. The chase rules are a convoluted mess though. Odd as 5e D&D has excellent chase rules!

I don't necessarily want to kick in with another CoC7E debate.....but....there is a chart for calculating Full/Half/Fifth scores for contested rolls to replace the old Resistance chart. It's about as complicated!

But aside from my grouches about removing the original story as an intro to the game, and the wonderful De Rerum Supernatura chapter from the corebook to make way for a tedious Chase chapter, the main mechanical issue  was probably around the attitude to Luck points and the implied action motif that the new edition had. For me, the new Delta Green system much more captures the thriller motif mode of play I prefer in investigative horror games. No luck points, just hard and cold percentiles and no systematic control of outcome. Love it.