TheRPGSite

If so, what?

Extra questions: How would you apply those things, and to which RPGs?

I thought milestones from Marvel Heroic Roleplaying was really cool.  The "Let it Ride" from Burning Wheel seemed like a good idea as well.  Letting your test result stand until there was a change.

Everything.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968578Everything.

Elaborate, man! At least on the ones you dig the most. How would you apply them and to which RPGs?

Arroz, I know you were talking to Christopher, but I'll elaborate a little for you on the one's I chose.  

I like the idea of milestones.  Things you're character wanted to accomplish and would get rewarded for doing so.  Gave the players something to chase after.  Complete a milestone?  Go make another.  Worked great:)

Just thought of another- really like the Keywords from Heroquest Core Rules.  Keywords were rated on how much impact they had in affecting the story, not the actual ability itself.

There's a trend lately some rpgs borrow ideas from board games with abstract game mechanics. Then again I might not understand the question. Can you define storygame and traditional?

A pure Storygame, to me, is something like Once Upon A Time, where each player has a set of cards with story elements. They try to take control of the narrative so they can play their element cards by weaving them into the story. Players steal the narrative reigns from each other but cannot ignore the story as told so far.
Each player has final ending card their trying to get to and if they manage to play it, they win.
No roleplaying at all. No immersion.
Simple and fun.
Doesn't necessarily produce a great story but they do sometimes resemble old rambling oral versions of fairytales that were not about 'story arc' or character development.

It's tough but if I were to choose a definition, I'd go with the notion that many of them have mechanics that force your point of view out of your character, or require/empower you to take on some GM functions.

The thing with some of these games is that sometimes they have other mechanical bits that are interesting but don't have that side effect.

Milestones sounds like a good one, RunningLaser. Can you speak more about HQ's keywords?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;968580Elaborate, man! At least on the ones you dig the most. How would you apply them and to which RPGs?

Here's the thing, what a lot of people here call storygames, most others call RPGs.

As much as I hate the implementation of Fate's Aspects, the idea of a single sentence to define a single, ahem, aspect of personality or approach to a situation is sound.  Milestones from the Cortex system also a good idea, as it provides a goal for players to achieve, helps focus the game into something fun for them.

And the most important thing that these so-called storygames claim?  That RPG's are a cooperative medium.

If a story is what you're after in your tabletop sessions, just have the players role-play their characters. A story will come from doing that.

That's not exactly what I am aiming for. It's more about interesting mechanics that show up in some of those games which might be cool to have in a more traditional rpg.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;968589It's tough but if I were to choose a definition, I'd go with the notion that many of them have mechanics that force your point of view out of your character, or require/empower you to take on some GM functions.

The thing with some of these games is that sometimes they have other mechanical bits that are interesting but don't have that side effect.

Milestones sounds like a good one, RunningLaser. Can you speak more about HQ's keywords?

Going from memory here, so apologies in advance if I get some of this wrong.

Keywords in HQ- They are things a character would use to overcome a problem in terms of the story, so they can be anything, you make up your own.  

Let's say you were playing a fantasy game and in the vein of D&D.  You could give that character a broad keyword, Fighter, then a rating.  That keyword would let everyone know that the character has all of those abilities that would fall under what most people think of when they think of a fighter.  You can get more specific keywords like Sword and Board for actual fighting or maybe Grin and Bear It to show how much resolve you have.  So maybe you use Grin and Bear it to shrug off a mighty blow from a monster, maybe you use it to shrug off getting snubbed by a snarky remark.  Does that help at all?

Another game I thought of- FU rpg.  Love the success/failure outcomes.  Yes/ Yes, but / Yes, and... / No / No, but / No, and...  Six outcomes that you can go anywhere with:)

I think today's RPG's already borrow a lot of aspects of storygames, some of may take the form of options or add ons. For example, I've used "story cards" (I think that was what they were called), that allowed players to play them to throw in a plot twist. I was a normal deck, and you could choose from the plot element (several were listed), or take a bonus to a skill roll. As it was created for d20, I think it must have been a Paizo product.

5E makes use of various personality traits, ideals and bonds, which, while not a mechanical element necessarily, do drive the adventure from a story standpoint.

Quote from: cranebump;968607I think today's RPG's already borrow a lot of aspects of storygames, some of may take the form of options or add ons. For example, I've used "story cards" (I think that was what they were called), that allowed players to play them to throw in a plot twist. I was a normal deck, and you could choose from the plot element (several were listed), or take a bonus to a skill roll. As it was created for d20, I think it must have been a Paizo product.
t.

I do agree plenty modern RPGs games borrow from Story Games. But that sounds a lot like the TORG drama deck (which came out ages before story games)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968610I do agree plenty modern RPGs games borrow from Story Games. But that sounds a lot like the TORG drama deck (which came out ages before story games)

Looked it up to be sure. It was these. (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8x9v)

If by storygames you're referring to things like Microscope and The Quiet Year, I think collaborative world-building is a thing that can be adopted by traditional RPGs to good effect.

Since the distinction is so hazy as to be near meaningless, I would wager the answer is probably yes.

If you count Fate as a storygame, I'd say I like adding its consequence regime to Mutants & Mastermind.

Quote from: John Scott;968583There's a trend lately some rpgs borrow ideas from board games with abstract game mechanics. Then again I might not understand the question. Can you define storygame and traditional?

That is not new. RuinsWorld and moreso Dragon Storm merged an RPG with a CCG. DiceMaster tried it with dice. But it lacked any real RPG element.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968610I do agree plenty modern RPGs games borrow from Story Games. But that sounds a lot like the TORG drama deck (which came out ages before story games)

Think Lace & Steel had a similar approach with some sort of tarot-style deck in 89 Around the same time as TORG. So definitely not a new concept.

Quote from: Itachi;968616If by storygames you're referring to things like Microscope and The Quiet Year, I think collaborative world-building is a thing that can be adopted by traditional RPGs to good effect.

We used to call it sandbox RPing...  :cool:

Quote from: Omega;968620Think Lace & Steel had a similar approach with some sort of tarot-style deck in 89 Around the same time as TORG. So definitely not a new concept.

I had Lace and Steel. You could use a Tarot deck for character generation, but it wasn't like TORG where it was used in-play to add story elements. There was also custom deck of cards that came with the game, but it was used for resolving duels.

Quote from: Itachi;968616If by storygames you're referring to things like Microscope and The Quiet Year, I think collaborative world-building is a thing that can be adopted by traditional RPGs to good effect.

I've heard this term, but have never experienced collaborative world-building. Could you give me an idea how it works?

I found the various generation tables used in Fiasco quite useful for creating structured story ideas. Games like My Life With Master make for interesting reads, if you want to draw out some good themes in a scenario too. Microscope, honestly, I couldn't really find much use for ultimately.

In "The Mountain Witch", an indie RPG about a group of masterless ronin who have been hired by the central government to climb Mt Fuji and kill the Sorcerer living at the top, character generation is simple, you list a few "aspects" of your ronin ("Archery/Unarmed/Etiquette/etc"), and then based on a random draw you have a Trust rating for all the other ronin. Conflict resolution is based on highest player's d6 roll, with Trust allowing adding d6s or taking the highest. The winner of the conflict gets to narrate the basic outcome, so it starts with a bit of sharing the GM responsibilities.

The cool thing is that you also draw a "Dark Fate" at character creation, unique to each characters (out of a pool of quite a few). These often will be things like "Agent of the Sorcerer" or "Fated to Betray the Party". Players who invoke their dark fate can "take over" for the GM, adding world elements or other things into play. The GM then has to incorporate these things on-the-fly into the game. Players can even leverage certain mechanics (Trust, Dark Secret narration) _after_ their character has died!

Here is a good review of the game: https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12162.phtml

I've GM'd a 2 session game, and it worked out pretty well. Very new idea to some of the folks who had only had previous D&D experience.

I would also recommend "Keys" from The Shadow Of Yesterday. Not the _exact_ implementation, but as a way to make things that are important to the player/character jump out at the GM.

http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html#keys

QuoteKeys
Keys are the primary method of increasing a character's abilities in The Shadow of Yesterday. These are goals, emotional ties, or vows a character has. By bringing these into the story, the player gains experience points (XP) he can use to advance the character, increasing pools and abilities, or learning new Secrets and Keys.

Again, an example will illustrate this better:

Example
Key of Conscience: Your character has a soft spot for those weaker than their opponents. Gain 1 XP every time your character helps someone who cannot help themselves. Gain 2 XP every time your character defends someone with might who is in danger and cannot save themselves. Gain 5 XP every time your character takes someone in an unfortunate situation and changes their life to where they can help themselves.
Buyoff: Ignore a request for help.

The Buyoff shown above is a special bit about Keys. Whenever a player has a character perform the action shown in one of the Buyoffs, the player can (this is not mandatory) erase the Key and gain 10 XP.

Unlike abilities and Secrets, the number of Keys a character can have is limited. A character can have no more than five Keys at one time.
...

Keys

Keys are the motivations, problems, connections, duties, and loyalties that pull on your character. To the player, they're highly important because they generate experience points. Creating new Keys may be easier than new Abilities or Secrets - they follow very simple rules.

A Key must involve a motivation, problem, connection, duty, or loyalty.
Keys come in two types:
Motivations. When the motivation is fulfilled in play, gain an experience point. When the motivation is fulfilled against good odds, gain three experience points.
Everything else. When the Key comes up in play, gain an experience point. When the Key presents a minor problem, gain two experience points. When it presents a major problem, gain five experience points.

All Keys have a Buyoff, which is a reversal from the Key by the character. All Buyoffs give the character 10 experience points. This Buyoff occurs only when you, the player, wants it to happen: you can lose a battle with the Secret of Bloodlust and still keep the Secret. If you want your character to undergo a change in his personality, though, adding to the story, you can take this Buyoff by fulfilling it. If you do take the Buyoff, you can never take this Key again.
As always, see the pre-made Keys to get a feel for creating your own.
Example Keys: http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html#open-keys

Here's a blog post about using Keys as FATE Milestones: https://rpgtweaks.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/tsoys-keys-into-fate-milestones/

Oh, and for me, games like Fate or Apocalypse World are not story games any more than any other RPG, really. They make some noise towards collaborative storytelling (which is fine), but ultimately players just narrate their character actions to a referee, with some dice/card/chip mechanism to neutrally resolve conflict - same as in any other RPG. At least in things like Fiasco, there is some material difference in approach.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;968617Since the distinction is so hazy as to be near meaningless, I would wager the answer is probably yes.

If you count Fate as a storygame, I'd say I like adding its consequence regime to Mutants & Mastermind.

What's the consequences regime?

Quote from: cranebump;968607I think today's RPG's already borrow a lot of aspects of storygames, some of may take the form of options or add ons. For example, I've used "story cards" (I think that was what they were called), that allowed players to play them to throw in a plot twist. I was a normal deck, and you could choose from the plot element (several were listed), or take a bonus to a skill roll. As it was created for d20, I think it must have been a Paizo product.

5E makes use of various personality traits, ideals and bonds, which, while not a mechanical element necessarily, do drive the adventure from a story standpoint.

yeah paizo plot twist deck. It's awesome (well, I like the twists themselves, as opposed to the mechanical bonuses)

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;968589It's tough but if I were to choose a definition, I'd go with the notion that many of them have mechanics that force your point of view out of your character, or require/empower you to take on some GM functions.

The thing with some of these games is that sometimes they have other mechanical bits that are interesting but don't have that side effect.

Milestones sounds like a good one, RunningLaser. Can you speak more about HQ's keywords?

Rpg's with narrative driven mechanics. Things can happen but you don't have to explain why following strict rules, just guidelines and usually an agreement between players and the game master as long as the action in question promotes the story or makes sense for the character etc.

Systems that empower players with various mechanics have sometimes interesting ideas, but at the same time ruin the whole concept of rpg which is at least to me unlimited options. You are "trapped" in said mechanics trying constantly to exploit the system, that is something that resembles board games.  

Honestly I can't think of a single thing that I find useful, maybe the collaborative world building idea, maybe.

Quote from: Nexus;968640What's the consequences regime?

Basically, if you are targeted by an attack and are out of "stress" (the more ephermeral/short term "hit points"), you would be taken out unless you take a consequence.

A consequence is a persistent complication, how persistent depends on how much damage you soaked up with it. -2 is a mild consequence good until the end of the session. -4 (moderate) and -6 (severe) take progressively longer to fix and usually require some sort of in-game intervention.

Mutants & Masterminds has "complications" which are drawbacks that you design into the character like "weak to kryptonite" or "becomes enraged". Consequences would be a way to tack on complications that are more temporary like "Iron man's boot jets out".

Quote from: John Scott;968645Systems that empower players with various mechanics have sometimes interesting ideas, but at the same time ruin the whole concept of rpg which is at least to me unlimited options. You are "trapped" in said mechanics trying constantly to exploit the system, that is something that resembles board games.  

Why are you 'trapped' in a mechanic? And who exactly is trying to exploit the system? Are you saying the mechanic forces you to exploit the system somehow? Or are you saying that the system is open to player exploitation?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;968647Basically, if you are targeted by an attack and are out of "stress" (the more ephermeral/short term "hit points"), you would be taken out unless you take a consequence.

A consequence is a persistent complication, how persistent depends on how much damage you soaked up with it. -2 is a mild consequence good until the end of the session. -4 (moderate) and -6 (severe) take progressively longer to fix and usually require some sort of in-game intervention.

Mutants & Masterminds has "complications" which are drawbacks that you design into the character like "weak to kryptonite" or "becomes enraged". Consequences would be a way to tack on complications that are more temporary like "Iron man's boot jets out".

Hey thanks, sounds interesting. If I ever dabble in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying again I might use that instead of saying any Complication above d12 takes you out of the scene.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;968575If so, what?

Extra questions: How would you apply those things, and to which RPGs?

Not a god-damned thing. Those frustrated fiction writers need to haul their bitch asses to Amazon, open their Kindle accounts, and just write their fucking stories already. Leave the gaming to the actual fucking gamers. "Storygames" are for fake gamers.

I define roleplaying as "playing a role in-character" as opposed to "playing a role out of character", and that's what I would call traditional, so by definition it's kind of hard to incorporate narrative or OOC mechanics into a traditional or IC game, because then it's no longer traditional.  I wouldn't want to put any OOC narrative mechanics in my traditional RPGs, because that's not what I want out of traditional RPGs.

One thing that traditional games could take from certain narrative games isn't so much mechanics as approach.

Fate and Xworld both attempt to focus on what's happening in the setting (of course both as character and player) to the point of taking all the physics based simulation of modifiers, charts, tables, etc and instead have very broadly applicable rules for actions or moves.  Looking at someone playing, it's not all that different from having a first-time D&D player say what they want to do, the GM tells them what to roll and then describes what happens using the rules to adjudicate.

I don't think I've seen a game that attempts to have a simple, broadly applicable list of actions, that doesn't also include OOC mechanics, which aren't really needed, it just seems to come with the territory.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;968696Not a god-damned thing. Those frustrated fiction writers need to haul their bitch asses to Amazon, open their Kindle accounts, and just write their fucking stories already. Leave the gaming to the actual fucking gamers. "Storygames" are for fake gamers.

Yes. Let the real gamers be told how awesome their characters are by the DM, as they try to fill in every box on their character sheet for the win.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968697I define roleplaying as "playing a role in-character" as opposed to "playing a role out of character", and that's what I would call traditional

Traditional RPGs are '70s-style 1st-gen adventure games with no role-play(ing) of any kind at the table. And unfortunately, people still "role-play" that way to this day.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968626I had Lace and Steel. You could use a Tarot deck for character generation, but it wasn't like TORG where it was used in-play to add story elements. There was also custom deck of cards that came with the game, but it was used for resolving duels.

I have TORG. The cards were an interesting gimmic. It worked for the probability warping theme of the setting. Oddly enough in some of the playtests we participated in way back the game didnt use them.

Quote from: Omega;968704I have TORG. The cards were an interesting gimmic. It worked for the probability warping theme of the setting. Oddly enough in some of the playtests we participated in way back the game didnt use them.

I was in a lot of campaigns that never used them either. I think it often came down to the GM.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968743I was in a lot of campaigns that never used them either. I think it often came down to the GM.

We didn't use them much. And I couldn't tell you why at this point. They were a fun mechanism to shake up the "lather, rinse, repeat" rut that rpg combat can fall into.

Quote from: Voros;968667Why are you 'trapped' in a mechanic? And who exactly is trying to exploit the system? Are you saying the mechanic forces you to exploit the system somehow? Or are you saying that the system is open to player exploitation?

All I am saying is that the mechanic is usually so "strong" that takes prominence over the role playing experience. By "trapped" I mean your imagination is trapped to a set of rules you constantly trying to exploit, similar to what happens on a board game its immersion breaking to me. I don't know if it makes any sense to you but that's how I see it.

Quote from: Nexus;968746We didn't use them much. And I couldn't tell you why at this point. They were a fun mechanism to shake up the "lather, rinse, repeat" rut that rpg combat can fall into.

The deck is a little unwieldy at first. I think some DMs and players also had trouble with the "oracle" nature of the system since you have to interpret what the card says and does into what fits the situation. Probably others just preferred more narrative control over whats going on? Or didnt feel like it added much to the gameplay?

Quote from: John Scott;968748All I am saying is that the mechanic is usually so "strong" that takes prominence over the role playing experience. By "trapped" I mean your imagination is trapped to a set of rules you constantly trying to exploit, similar to what happens on a board game its immersion breaking to me. I don't know if it makes any sense to you but that's how I see it.

Do you have any specific mechanics in mind?

The one that comes most strongly to mind now is Hillfolk (DramaSystem) with it's token economy. Also Universalis with the same thing, but used differently.

I don't know of any storygame mechanics that I'd want to use. The closest I got to interested was Microscope, for purposes of creating game world history with the input of others, but I did not end up deciding I actually wanted to use Microscope. I've done collaborative game world design since decades ago, without needing the storygame structures Microscope has.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;968758Do you have any specific mechanics in mind?

The one that comes most strongly to mind now is Hillfolk (DramaSystem) with it's token economy. Also Universalis with the same thing, but used differently.

Apart from the usual suspects I am going to mention a very recent released rpg, Modiphius Conan and the momentum mechanic. To anyone who doesn't know you gain momentum by successfully using a skill, a very easy thing to do in Conan rpg.

Session went like this. Players where constantly thinking how to use their skills to build momentum pool, all the f time because momentum is the almighty god mechanic in the game. I've seen a GM who was so frustrated that he gave up and is using only the fluff from the books now (which is excellent), btw the GM had to spent a currency or else players always acted first in combat. (a rip off from Marvel Heroic rpg just like the doom pool currency - an idea first time I saw in Marvel Saga rules)

I might sound dismissive of "narrative games" but in reality I am not, I am very open minded and I like all games especially when a good GM is involved. I am very interested to see some mechanic written here that I might find useful though.

Quote from: John Scott;968748All I am saying is that the mechanic is usually so "strong" that takes prominence over the role playing experience. By "trapped" I mean your imagination is trapped to a set of rules you constantly trying to exploit, similar to what happens on a board game its immersion breaking to me. I don't know if it makes any sense to you but that's how I see it.

Do you have an example? I think what you're describing sounds a lot like how Moves are mishandled by inexperienced players without a strong GM in some PbtA games to show/teach how they're supposed to work. For new players Moves are often just best left in the background as they become obsessed with figuring out how to use the mechanic instead of just reacting to the situation.

For the purpose of this thread, are people considering storygames the actual storygames like Microscope, Fiasco and Munchausen, or anything non-traditional like Fate, PbtA, Everway or, say, Pendragon?

My apologies if this was already answered.

Both.

A Quiet Year and the sequel set in a forest, the name escapes me are also quite good. The sequel can be used to create a dungeon/ruin.

Actually, now that I think about it, both supposed game types have been leaking into each other for years.  It's hard to really separate them from each other if there is such a separation, or if it's yet another Pundit allusion with no basis to reality.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968577The "Let it Ride" from Burning Wheel seemed like a good idea as well.  Letting your test result stand until there was a change.

I find the "Let it Ride" rule to be a rather good simulationist mechanic, especially in a dicepool system like the one BW uses (where no level of skill guarantee you even a single success;)).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968965Actually, now that I think about it, both supposed game types have been leaking into each other for years.  It's hard to really separate them from each other if there is such a separation, or if it's yet another Pundit allusion with no basis to reality.

Player input world building goes way back. Im pretty sure theres one or two articles on it in early issues of Dragon. And one of the mechanics Gygax noted for solo play was to have other players make levels and send to them to explore.

Theres been a few tries at collaboration styles both formal and informal.

So really depends on the group. For some its a natural outgrowth of the more freeform sandbox style for example.

Also players players creating their own hirelings/retainers/npcs goes pretty far back too.

And then theres co-DMing where a player also DMs at points.

I think Let it Ride from Burning Wheel is a sound, solid mechanic that should really be included in a lot more GMing advice sections. It doesn't need to be a rule at all - just a suggestion for when to time rolls, and how to let consequences matter. I would use a very diminished form of Aspects from FATE in other games as well. Milestones from Marvel were so so, but I never found my players really hitting it off with them in actual play, but creating scenario goals that are listed in the open has merit. We once had a lot of fun running player achievements, and it created some very amusing out of game fun. My table always uses Demerit and Style points for good/bad player behaviour and/or role-playing, but we've been using these since the late 90s.

Quote from: Skarg;968774I don't know of any storygame mechanics that I'd want to use. The closest I got to interested was Microscope, for purposes of creating game world history with the input of others, but I did not end up deciding I actually wanted to use Microscope. I've done collaborative game world design since decades ago, without needing the storygame structures Microscope has.

Yeah, the most interesting thing I seen from story games are mechanics that allow you to build the setting or some aspect of the setting like NPCs.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968965Actually, now that I think about it, both supposed game types have been leaking into each other for years.  It's hard to really separate them from each other if there is such a separation, or if it's yet another Pundit allusion with no basis to reality.

Yep, I agree. These practices are even leaking to more traditional setups these days. See D&D 5e Inspiration, The Black Hack "GM never rolls dice", Beyond the Wall "playbooks", Mutant Year Zero mix of Hex-crawl & inter-PC drama, etc.

Quote from: Itachi;969105Beyond the Wall "playbooks"

While I agree with the rest of your examples, or at least the ones I'm familiar with, I'd point out that Beyond the Wall's "playbooks" are actually just lifepaths, much closer to Cyberpunk2020 than to any other game out there;).

And yes, of course there would be some leaking, but they're still not the same. Then again, Fate and Traveller both using 2d6 don't suddenly become the same game just because the modifiers to the same dice kinda have to fit in the same range:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;969143While I agree with the rest of your examples, or at least the ones I'm familiar with, I'd point out that Beyond the Wall's "playbooks" are actually just lifepaths, much closer to Cyberpunk2020 than to any other game out there;).

And yes, of course there would be some leaking, but they're still not the same. Then again, Fate and Traveller both using 2d6 don't suddenly become the same game just because the modifiers to the same dice kinda have to fit in the same range:D!

But Lifepaths are a 'storygame' mechanic, they add the 'dreaded' back story for players to work with.

Regarding 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

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969166But Lifepaths are a 'storygame' mechanic, they add the 'dreaded' back story for players to work with.

Generating the past of chargen with whatever mechanics you use isn't the same thing as a "live" mechanic to allow OOC manipulation of the game itself.  Chargen, unless it's 100% random with zero choices is always going to be "narrative" in some form, it has to be.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969166But Lifepaths are a 'storygame' mechanic, they add the 'dreaded' back story for players to work with.

Putting it politely, that's bullshit.

Lifepaths don't create backgrounds??

Quote from: AsenRG;969370Putting it politely, that's bullshit.

He's just sulking because Black Vulmea is speaking in another thread.  So he found a thread where he could act out by grogbaiting.

Quote from: Voros;969379Lifepaths don't create backgrounds??

They do, but creating a background, by itself, can be a simulationist mechanic. The equivocation between background and storygame mechanics is the bullshit part:).

Quote from: CRKrueger;969381He's just sulking because Black Vulmea is speaking in another thread.  So he found a thread where he could act out by grogbaiting.

I don't really care, as you know, but he made the mistake to quote me before spewing his BS line;).

Quote from: Voros;969379Lifepaths don't create backgrounds??

They do, and apparently, backgrounds, history, backstory is garbage and storygames...  Supposedly.  Unless, of course, it's in a game system that certain people want to claim is not Storygame.  Whee!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969166But Lifepaths are a 'storygame' mechanic, they add the 'dreaded' back story for players to work with.

Traveller

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969435They do, and apparently, backgrounds, history, backstory is garbage and storygames...  Supposedly.  Unless, of course, it's in a game system that certain people want to claim is not Storygame.  Whee!

Backstory is Story game material now?

And isn't backstory, character history and background the same thing?

Quote from: AsenRG;969143While I agree with the rest of your examples, or at least the ones I'm familiar with, I'd point out that Beyond the Wall's "playbooks" are actually just lifepaths, much closer to Cyberpunk2020 than to any other game out there;).

Hmmm I thought BtW playbooks were more than that, also containing progression options and other things thematic to that character type, like PbtA playbooks. If that's not the case, you are right.

Quote from: estar;969443Traveller

Quote from: Nexus;969450Backstory is Story game material now?

And isn't backstory, character history and background the same thing?

I already stated that 'storygame' and RPG are meaningless terms that more or less mean the same thing.  What it boils down to, given my understanding, the term is Storygame is leveled at any whose mechanics is too far removed from anything Pundit and several others want to claim as 'proper'.

Some of the labels in these conversations are meaningless, although I would differentiate a game like Microscope as being a seperate type of game to D&D however, and 'storygame' is as good a name for this type of game as any other.

For the record, though, I think:

"Traditional RPG" - is an insulting term as it implies a rejection of innovation and new ideas, which is rarely the case.

"Narrative" vs "Simulationist"  vs "Gamist" - is a bullshit debate, as the best games seem to involve all three aspects as well as others. Much of the time, "simulationist" just seems to be another derogative label used by self avowed "narrativists". If the game involves players explaining their actions to a referee and then rolling dice or some other method to determine outcome, then they are the same type of game as D&D. They may have other ideas or innovations to add to the mix, but saying that they are another type of game is a pretence. Games like Munchausen or Fiasco or Microscope do change the emphasis of gameplay somewhat though, so I think they are indeed a slightly different category.

"Indie" game - is a pretence also. The RPG hobby is small, so any notion of having big, faceless businesses for an indie market to be alternative to is a nonsense. Moreover, many games that purport to be indie are anything but the sort: FATE is a generic system, open for third parties including licenses; The Burning Wheel system was licensed to make Mouse Guard, etc. The playing field for all these games is entirely level.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969452I already stated that 'storygame' and RPG are meaningless terms that more or less mean the same thing.  What it boils down to, given my understanding, the term is Storygame is leveled at any whose mechanics is too far removed from anything Pundit and several others want to claim as 'proper'.

I don't disagree with your premise. I was asking if someone had actually straight up called them that, serious question.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969452I already stated that 'storygame' and RPG are meaningless terms that more or less mean the same thing.  What it boils down to, given my understanding, the term is Storygame is leveled at any whose mechanics is too far removed from anything Pundit and several others want to claim as 'proper'.

While I agree with this in a general, I think games like Munchausen and Microscope deserve a distinction from ones like D&D and Vampire, don't you think? I think treating these as separate sub-genre of a greater genre makes more sense.

Quote from: Itachi;969477While I agree with this in a general, I think games like Munchausen and Microscope deserve a distinction from ones like D&D and Vampire, don't you think? I think treating these as separate sub-genre of a greater genre makes more sense.

Yep. D&D and Vampire are role-playing games. Microscope and Munchausen may have roleplaying elements, but honestly they are closer to things like Once Upon a Time, which is a storytelling game. I think the distinction is clear here, its just that the term 'storytelling' has become used in some roleplaying games as a design value of sorts. However, the real emphasis in Vampire or Fate is still on the playing of roles primarily. Story is essentially a by product.

Quote from: Itachi;969477While I agree with this in a general, I think games like Munchausen and Microscope deserve a distinction from ones like D&D and Vampire, don't you think? I think treating these as separate sub-genre of a greater genre makes more sense.

I agree. I don't think the lines are quite as distinct as others might but there are differences.

There are differences but if Cameron's The Terminator, Tarkovsky's The Mirror and Brakhage's Dogstar Man are all uncontroversially understood to be films (and they are) I think the obsession with parsing the differences between RPGs is more idealogical rather than formal or aesthetic.

Quote from: AsenRG;969419They do, but creating a background, by itself, can be a simulationist mechanic.

Sorry but that seems to be a distinction in search of a point.

I'm also often confused by some gamers embrace of terms like simulationist. I thought this was the lingo of the detested heretic Forgites? Who first introduced this term into RPG design?

But then despite how many claim to hold Ronnie in contempt you see his terms being used by the OSR all the time: heartbreakers, pink slime fantasy, even braindamage. For someone so wrong he certainly had a sustaining influence.

Quote from: Voros;969529There are differences but if Cameron's The Terminator, Tarkovsky's The Mirror and Brakhage's Dogstar Man are all uncontroversially understood to be films (and they are) I think the obsession with parsing the differences between RPGs is more idealogical rather than formal or aesthetic.

Actually, I've found that denying or obscuring differences in RPGs is usually ideological as well.  People have no problem saying whether or not a game has a dice pool system, or is OGL compatible, or is Roll and Keep, or skill based vs. class based and making determinations based on those mechanical criteria.

Suggest that you can do the same to identify whether a game has an OOC meta-point economy, or includes OOC player-facing choices as part of core resolution mechanics, and watch the denial begin.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

In film people distinguish between an action film, an art film and an experimental film. But everyone agrees that they are films. And I've never seen a respected film critic claim that a certain genre or kind of film somehow isn't a film. And most people who are self-identified film fans love all kinds of films: noir, HK action movies, musicals, character studies, horror films, silent, experimental, et al. You may prefer certain genres but as a fan you're very unlikely to condemn a genre that doesn't work for you and claim it isn't even a film!

But you encounter people all the time proclaiming this or that game isn't really an RPG. People don't usually have an issue with categorizing a film because if they really love film it doesn't come with a value judgement. They recognize there are good and bad horror films, good and bad musicals, etc. Not 'horror is bad' or 'musicals are bad.' To make an argument against an entire genre or form would get you laughed at (some have tried, very unsuccessfully).

But for some reason in the RPG comunity these names are full of value judgements, that's why people are always fighting over them.

If the use of storygame wasn't often loaded with contempt it probably wouldn't be such a big deal. And add to that the term is applied incredibly sloppily, somehow including not only Fiasco, Once Upon a Time and 1001 Nights but AW, Fate, Dread, etc. I get the feeling if Toon or Ghostbusters was released today they would be called 'storygames.'

If D&D were released today, it would be called a "storygame"!

cough...Dungeon World....ahem...it's a bit like D&D, with Classes ("archetypes") and character sheets ("playbooks") and Ability scores and spells and stuff. But they've got rid of the polyhedrals, and just use 2D6 now! So its a Story game! :)

Fate, xworld, 2d20, Cortex, etc aren't Storygames, but, strictly speaking, they're not 100% RPGs either, since Playing the Game isn't literally playing the Role, you have decisions to make as a player that the character cannot have, you have to "step out" of the role at certain times to play the game.  Do they fall under the umbrella of RPG, sure, but they're really some form of hybrid.  Narrative RPG, Story RPG, whatever you want to call them.

Just like there is a clear difference between an RPG and a Storygame, there's also a clear difference between an RPG that forces you with mechanics to make decisions while not roleplaying vs. one that does not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969567Fate, xworld, 2d20, Cortex, etc aren't Storygames, but, strictly speaking, they're not 100% RPGs either, since Playing the Game isn't literally playing the Role, you have decisions to make as a player that the character cannot have, you have to "step out" of the role at certain times to play the game.

I 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.

Let's bring this thread back on track, before it gets pushed to "Other Games".

The topic was: Is there anything that trad RPGs can use from specific storygames?
And that is indeed a very interesting question.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968697I define roleplaying as "playing a role in-character" as opposed to "playing a role out of character", and that's what I would call traditional, so by definition it's kind of hard to incorporate narrative or OOC mechanics into a traditional or IC game, because then it's no longer traditional.  I wouldn't want to put any OOC narrative mechanics in my traditional RPGs, because that's not what I want out of traditional RPGs.

I didn't read the OP as "what OOC narrative mechanics are worth pilfering for trad games".

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;968602That's not exactly what I am aiming for. It's more about interesting mechanics that show up in some of those games which might be cool to have in a more traditional rpg.

I read it as "what interesting or new trad (or borderline trad) rules are hidden in storygames that trad gamers don't ever look at because ... reasons."

For that we don't need to define the sharp boundaries between game types. If someone cites a game that for some of us is a storygame, and for others just a trad game with some mild ignorable OOC elements all is well if we (again, some of us) learn something we would otherwise have missed.

Quote from: Itachi;969451Hmmm I thought BtW playbooks were more than that, also containing progression options and other things thematic to that character type, like PbtA playbooks. If that's not the case, you are right.

There's no "progression options", you just level up in the class that the Playbook details (along with the events that lead to you becoming of said class, or stemmed from you being from said class).

Quote from: Nexus;969461I don't disagree with your premise. I was asking if someone had actually straight up called them that, serious question.

No, except the one who tries to throw bullshit everywhere to see if it sticks;).

Quote from: Voros;969530Sorry but that seems to be a distinction in search of a point.

Not at all.

QuoteI'm also often confused by some gamers embrace of terms like simulationist.

It describes pretty well my playstyle...as long as you don't try to use the Forge's excuse for a definition. Why wouldn't I use it?

QuoteI thought this was the lingo of the detested heretic Forgites?

No, the Forge borrowed the term.
Also, I don't find them heretics. I like games like Sorcerer, for example...just not often, and seldom as a main course for extended periods.

QuoteWho first introduced this term into RPG design?

The earlier RPGA (?) model, which introduced a different Three-Fold Model predating the Forge's one by years.
The categories in it are Gamist, Simulationist, Dramatist. And the Sumulationist entry's explnanation is orders of magnitude better than the Forgite's explanation (which is obviously written by people unfamiliar with the playstyle).
Narrativism isn't the same as Dramatism, BTW.

QuoteBut then despite how many claim to hold Ronnie in contempt you see his terms being used by the OSR all the time: heartbreakers, pink slime fantasy, even braindamage. For someone so wrong he certainly had a sustaining influence.

He was right on some things, and wrong on others. His (misre)presentation of simulationism was certainly among the things he was wrong on.
Heartbreakers are an observable phenomenon...yes, I mean the games:D!


And amusingly, Ron says in Sorcerer Annotated Edition that one of his greatest - in narrative terms, too - campaigns of Sorcerer was when he was just playing his NPCs, and didn't have to plan a thing:p. I laughed out loud upon reading this, for reasons that are* obvious!

*Hopefully.

The statement that you should design games to only cater to a narrow segment of players has been proven dubious at best, too. Maybe as an exercise of pure design and as a means to show off your work and impress a narrow (or not so narrow, hopefully) base of fans.

Either way, the statement that simulationism is a Forge term is outright wrong;).

Quote from: Itachi;969451Hmmm I thought BtW playbooks were more than that, also containing progression options and other things thematic to that character type, like PbtA playbooks. If that's not the case, you are right.

There's no "progression options", you just level up in the class that the Playbook details (along with the events that lead to you becoming of said class, or stemmed from you being from said class).

Quote from: Nexus;969461I don't disagree with your premise. I was asking if someone had actually straight up called them that, serious question.

No, except the one who tries to throw bullshit everywhere to see if it sticks;).

Quote from: Voros;969530Sorry but that seems to be a distinction in search of a point.

Not at all.

QuoteI'm also often confused by some gamers embrace of terms like simulationist.

It describes pretty well my playstyle...as long as you don't try to use the Forge's excuse for a definition. Why wouldn't I use it?

QuoteI thought this was the lingo of the detested heretic Forgites?

No, the Forge borrowed the term.
Also, I don't find them heretics. I like games like Sorcerer, for example...just not often, and seldom as a main course for extended periods.

QuoteWho first introduced this term into RPG design?

The earlier RPGA (?) model, which introduced a different Three-Fold Model predating the Forge's one by years.
The categories in it are Gamist, Simulationist, Dramatist. And the Sumulationist entry's explnanation is orders of magnitude better than the Forgite's explanation (which is obviously written by people unfamiliar with the playstyle).
Narrativism isn't the same as Dramatism, BTW.

QuoteBut then despite how many claim to hold Ronnie in contempt you see his terms being used by the OSR all the time: heartbreakers, pink slime fantasy, even braindamage. For someone so wrong he certainly had a sustaining influence.

He was right on some things, and wrong on others. His (misre)presentation of simulationism was certainly among the things he was wrong on.
Heartbreakers are an observable phenomenon...yes, I mean the games:D!


And amusingly, Ron says in Sorcerer Annotated Edition that one of his greatest - in narrative terms, too - campaigns of Sorcerer was when he was just playing his NPCs, and didn't have to plan a thing:p. I laughed out loud upon reading this, for reasons that are* obvious!

*Hopefully.

The statement that you should design games to only cater to a narrow segment of players has been proven dubious at best, too. Maybe as an exercise of pure design and as a means to show off your work and impress a narrow (or not so narrow, hopefully) base of fans.

Either way, the statement that simulationism is a Forge term is outright wrong;).

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.

I didn't say those games were the first, I used them because they are games sometimes hit with the "not RPG" claim Voros was talking about.   Sure there were games like James Bond 007 that did similar things.  James Bond 007 is a different form of RPG too.  That's not a conceit, it's a fact.

If I'm not engaging a mechanic through a choice a character made in the setting then it's a mechanic I am engaging as a player.  It's an OOC mechanic.  Some RPGs have OOC mechanics, some do not.  Some have optional OOC mechanics, some have core OOC mechanics.  Whether or not an OOC mechanic breaks IC immersion for someone is subjective.  Whether or not the amount of OOC mechanics trips a threshold of dislike for a player is subjective.  That the mechanics are OOC is objective.

You can mince words however you need to to sleep at night, but there will always be a categorical difference.  Even between "100% RPGs with storytelling motifs" and "100% RPGs without storytelling motifs".  ;)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968590And the most important thing that these so-called storygames claim?  That RPG's are a cooperative medium.

"Cooperative medium" .... I just realized, that if "taking on a role/character and cooperate with other players to create something that can be described as a narrative or a storyline" is the only thing or the main thing that makes a game an rpg, then you could essentially call the old top-down arcade game Gauntlet an rpg, or Golden axe, or Double-fricken-Dragon!

Essentially, it stretches the definition of "rpg" way too wide.

EDIT: Wow, my response is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy late.......
xP

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969541Roleplaying Game = Game in which the mechanical decisions being made are directly associated to decisions being made by the player's character (i.e., the act of playing the game is literally playing the role).

Storytelling Game = Game in which the mechanics determine which player has the narrative control necessary to determine the outcome or details of the game world.

The argument can be made that these are related forms of games, but there's clear value in the distinction for the same reason that there's value in drawing a distinction between Poker and Twilight Imperium. Yes, they're both games (and The Terminator and The Mirror are both films), but claiming that there's no useful distinction between the two is just willful obfuscation.

So by this definition, Beyond The Wall and Other Adventures is a 'Storygame' because it has Fortune Points, and all the players, including GM, get together and build the world, namely the village, that the characters come from.

Huhn.

Quote from: AsenRG;969596The earlier RPGA (?) model, which introduced a different Three-Fold Model predating the Forge's one by years.
The categories in it are Gamist, Simulationist, Dramatist. And the Sumulationist entry's explnanation is orders of magnitude better than the Forgite's explanation (which is obviously written by people unfamiliar with the playstyle)..

   RGFA, actually--from rec.games.frp.advocacy, the Usenet group that started hashing the threefold model out in the mid-90s.

   I didn't participate in the discussions, but I remember seeing some of them. :)

I think it's more productive for the effects of this discussion to read the question as "Is there anything traditional RPGs can use from non-traditional RPGs?" This way, we can count James Bond 007, Ghostbusters, Pendragon, Burning Wheel, Fiasco, Fate, Apocalypse World, etc all in the same, non-traditional group, besides sidelining the tiresome classification arguments on storygames.

And yes, as shown in the responses, there is a lot of good things that can be adopted, and is being adopted lately, by traditional Rpgs from non-traditional ones.

Quote from: Itachi;969642I think it's more productive for the effects of this discussion to read the question as "Is there anything traditional RPGs can use from non-traditional RPGs?" This way, we can count James Bond 007, Ghostbusters, Pendragon, Burning Wheel, Fiasco, Fate, Apocalypse World, etc all in the same, non-traditional group, besides sidelining the tiresome classification arguments on storygames.

And yes, as shown in the responses, there is a lot of good things that can be adopted, and is being adopted lately, by traditional Rpgs from non-traditional ones.

I like those terms, much less baggage.

Quote from: estar;969443Traveller

Apparently, there's stuff that storygames can use from specific traditional RPGs.

Quote from: 3rik;969651Apparently, there's stuff that storygames can use from specific traditional RPGs.

And they are doing that already;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;969597I didn't say those games were the first, I used them because they are games sometimes hit with the "not RPG" claim Voros was talking about.   Sure there were games like James Bond 007 that did similar things.  James Bond 007 is a different form of RPG too.  That's not a conceit, it's a fact.

So 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 wanted something 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.

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 it work. The mechanics simply operate as collaborative tools to create stories. Role-playing can be used once scenes are set, but there aren't any mechanics for it and it's largely a by-product of the created narrative, not the other way round. That is a clear distinction. It makes it closer to something like Once Upon a Time, where again you don't have to roleplay at all.

For other games like Sorcerer, Fate, Apocalypse World, etc, any distinction cited is just pure guff. There is no real structural distinction in how these games are played differently to D&D, just various ideas that play within the same form. People often cite Vampire as being a game that 'pays lip-service' to narrativism, when it's basically structured the same way as other rpgs but just discusses storytelling a lot. The truth is that these other games are exactly in the same category too. In every one of them, you have a narrator/GM/referee/whatever describe scenes for players to respond to. The players describe their actions and roll dice (or whatever) to determine outcomes. They are all RPGs.

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 :D

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.

Yeah the contested rolls rules seem more complicated than needed but  may become second nature through use. Ever since THACO I refuse to use charts. What edition are you referring to, I think my old CoC book is 5e and I don't recall the story or what De Rerum Supernatura is. But I may have skipped the story as I was already familiar with Lovecraft.

Quote from: Voros;969780Yeah the contested rolls rules seem more complicated than needed but  may become second nature through use. Ever since THACO I refuse to use charts. What edition are you referring to, I think my old CoC book is 5e and I don't recall the story or what De Rerum Supernatura is. But I may have skipped the story as I was already familiar with Lovecraft.

De Rerum Supernatura was the chapter written as a pseudo academic essay (by Philius P. Sadowsky) that links ancient languages to the Cthulhu mythos. I think it's quite brilliantly conceived and written, and provokes thought about hidden layers of meaning and the conspiracies thereof. I cannot recall if it was in 5th edition, but it certainly was in 5.5 edition onwards. Unfortunately, 5.5 onwards chopped the wonderful forensics essay from 5th (it was relocated to the Keeper's Compendium supplement) so I guess it's all downhill!

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;968696Not a god-damned thing. Those frustrated fiction writers need to haul their bitch asses to Amazon, open their Kindle accounts, and just write their fucking stories already. Leave the gaming to the actual fucking gamers. "Storygames" are for fake gamers.

This is the correct answer.  With one slight correction: most Storygaming Swine know they lack any talent or ability to produce anything meaningful. They couldn't even write a shit novel (the likes of which are plentiful these days).  They're trying to take over RPGs and make the Super-Serial because they literally have nothing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970422This is the correct answer.

There's no "correct" answer, except as it pertains to individual gaming groups.

Shields shall be splintered (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com.br/2008/05/shields-shall-be-splintered.html), one of the most famous house rules in the OSR blogosphere.

If you think about it, it is really new school (and really cool).

Now, I have nothing against most types of mechanics, but half my players cannot deal with "fate points" (a thing in 5e now), the paizo event deck, etc. They prefer making their choices "in character" and that is my favorite mode of play as well.

There is plenty of room for using whatever fits your group, or a "middle ground" like 5e.

Absolutely nothing can be learned from Storygames. Anything worthwhile in storygames were ripped off of RPGs. Everything native to them is garbage.