Estar,

In most of my games, and I understand this is actually a fairly common approach, there is no plot as such.

Rather the GM creates a dynamic situation, adds PCs and then referees what happens.

For example, the situation may be that a city is torn with factional infighting between the aristocracy and the power of the merchant guilds, the GM preps the personalities involved, their agendas and what will happen if the PCs were not there then the PCs arrive and play starts.

The key is the GM has no view on what will happen once play starts, and no particular preconceived plot.

To me this is a classic form of trad GMing, not as common as plot driven GMing but not all that rare either.

So I would alter your rather good four part test as follows:

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure/situation before the actual session
b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

I've added situation there, because I don't think what I'm describing takes me into storygaming territory even slightly but I don't think it was something you were recognising.

Incidentally, folk who like my approach tend not to use modern style modules at all as they are useless to us, though I understand way back in the day some DnD modules worked precisely on the basis I outline above.

Balbinus (and Rob), note that when some people write "plot" they don't mean a sequence of preplanned events, but rather (1) the "premise" of a scenario or story. Conversely some people do mean (2) a preplanned sequence of events, or at least a general outline of events that might shift around a bit, but which will fit an arc that the GM knows in advance. I may be mistaken, but from other discussions with Rob I think he means (1) the former.

Basically I'm a little more optimistic about the ability of a "storytelling game" (in the sense Dancey's talking about) to build on a  "plot" (1); after all there are games like Universalis, Polaris, Capes, and Primetime Adventures which at least from secondhand reports manage to work well for some groups, and once any of those games gets going, you necessarily have a "plot" (1) that develops and which gets built on instead of being completely undercut.

(Maybe I'm being generous; however, I think I could enjoy any of those games if I had the right people playing it with me--as a rough litmus test, if someone doesn't understand that Star Wars eps. 1-3 are laughable drek, they probably shouldn't be "empowered" in the same game with me.)

So I think perhaps a prepared module that simply provides, say, a situation, some maps, and a guide to factions wouldn't be much different from the product of the first brainstorming session of a wide-open "storytelling game". One thing working against it might be that players tend to be more invested in fiction of their own invention; nevertheless, I think it could work. I just wouldn't see it as an RPG, and I also don't think the traditional GM-player divide necessarily limits player input and freedom as drastically as Dancey seems to think.

Quote from: darA game where people could build an adventure in the non GM manner, intending for it to be played by other players, would be kinda cool.

I'd look to Universalis, possibly Levi's free Microcosm, and maybe Lee Short's Clay of the Gods for inspiration, and possibly a solution to this need.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm new here too, but welcome aboard.  This is a hell of a freewheeling fistfest and there's lots of diverging opinions roaming around in this here unmoderated RPG Forum.   Some people here are flat out against Story-Games.  Some people are for them to varying degrees.   A lot of people here just can't stand the Forge, and the reason why comes down to a few specific reasons:

1. Their marketing strategy has been to denigrate Traditionalist Gamesmasters with terminology such as "GM Fiat" (for being a phrase preloaded with negative connotation), "BadWrongFun" and "Brain Damage", and many people here find it offensive to no small degree.  If you don't know what these refer to, just ask.  

2. Concepts such as "Player Empowerment", which appear to denigrate the Traditionalist approach to Gamesmastering where the GM owns the BackStory and the Players own the Plot via the actions of their Characters.   A lot of GMs and Players have had great experiences with the Traditionalist style, and so these people (myself included) question the validity of the "Player Empowerment" movement, especially given its drawbacks (such as the loss of suspense).  You could read more about that debate in associated threads such as this one.

Well, there are additional reasons, probably, but these are the two that I've noticed most frequently alluded to, and the ones I feel most strongly about personally.  

- Mark

You forgot to mention the viral marketting approach to pushing Forge style play and Forge style games in forums, which has done much to turn people off of the Forge cult.

Quote from: BalbinusIncidentally, folk who like my approach tend not to use modern style modules at all as they are useless to us, though I understand way back in the day some DnD modules worked precisely on the basis I outline above.

Me too on pretty much all of your points. Your description of city GMing is me juggling Lankhmar factions back in the day. Just to add that many early Traveller modules were famously or infamously situational like that also. To plot-driven people (including myself during certain phases) they could be nigh unintelligible for that reason. Many people still hate them.

Quote from: estarDoes the game have a referee that has the following duties

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session
b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

Depends on the RPG. There is already a pretty broad continuum between 'yes always', 'sometimes' and 'no'. Thats why I'm stating that the distinctions you're drawing are, at best, artificial.

Correction: they're meaningful.

Rob and others in this thread are drawing distinctions so that they can get their opinions understood.

If you like you can tell a story while playing "Tiddlywinks", but that doesn't mean anyone else has to acknowledge it as an RPG.

Perhaps it would help if you'd give an example of a published game that you think of as an RPG, or a gaming situation that you played in,  which breaks any of (a)-(d).

Quote from: Elliot WilenPerhaps it would help if you'd give an example of a published game that you think of as an RPG, or a gaming situation that you played in,  which breaks any of (a)-(d).

I'll take a bash, in the interest of seeing where it gets us.

Hm, let's take Dogs in the Vineyard, a game I don't actually like but that is definitely a storygame.

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session

Yup

b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.

Yup
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

Yup
d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

Yup.

Hm, that didn't work so well.

Ok, let's try octaNe, which I have played as well and like more than DitV:

a) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session

Yup

b) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.

Yup

c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

Yup, because this doesn't take into account narrative control, on a good roll in octaNe I say what happens, but the GM still rules on when rolls are needed.

d) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.


Yup.

Actually, I'm struggling to think of storygames that don't pass these tests.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhich makes it very ironic that Ryan Dancey is saying "no power gamers", because "attention whore" pretty well sums up what Dancey has reduced himself to as of now.

RPGPundit

And doubly ironic that Pundit would point that out.

Quote from: BalbinusI'll take a bash, in the interest of seeing where it gets us.

Hm, let's take Dogs in the Vineyard, a game I don't actually like but that is definitely a storygame.[...]
Yup
c) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

This is an area where DitV starts to wander off the reservation, since everyone at the table has a dual responsibility to mechanics and world-emulation--i.e., what traits you can invoke in a conflict and how to narrate Raises. It goes a bit farther with 100% player-defined interpretations of Fallout. The biggest (which might really fall under (a) which I didn't quote) is mutability and subjectivity of the cosmology and continuity--i.e., at least by some readings of the rules, it seems the players can declare a town "done and saved" whenever they like and regardless of what they actually did to "save" it.

I don't know octaNe, but

QuoteYup, because this doesn't take into account narrative control, on a good roll in octaNe I say what happens.

if this doesn't violate one of Rob's criteria, then the criteria should probably be rewritten. Note that I personally don't think the divisions are precisely defined; "hero" points have been around for quite a while and most people accept that an RPG can include a little bit of player narrative control through their expenditure. It's more when you have a drastic narrative twist such as I've suggested elsewhere, like a player declaring that an NPC is secretly in league with the Devil, that these sorts of mechanics would take you into story-time.

QuoteActually, I'm struggling to think of storygames that don't pass these tests.

The Mountain Witch suggests that players be able to improvise backstory as the game goes along; Universalis obviously does fail the test, as does Polaris. Not sure if TMW claims to be an RPG; the other two don't. Dancey's hypothetical game I think will violate (b)-(d) at least in part, and maybe (a) as well if Rob's worst fears are realized.

Universalis plainly doesn't meet Rob's tests, but I think it is very much a story creation game.

Re Dogs, is choosing which traits any different to choosing which skills to use?  Is it so different to Risus or Over the Edge?  Also, narrating what your choice means, is that different to narrating your blow in a DnD game on rolling to hit ("I duck his blow and slash upwards" for example, pure colour with no mechanical effect much as in Dogs IIRC).

I think Rob's criteria need adjusting to take account of narrative control, though only on a major scale.  I'd struggle with any test which told me games like Adventure, Buffy or Feng Shui weren't rpgs and all of those have elements of player controlled narrative.  I agree with the distinction you draw, drastic narrative twists, essentially for me it's when the player can rewrite the setting in a fundamental way which may be contrary to the GM's wishes.

I don't really know The Mountain Witch, the premise never grabbed me.  Premise used here in an ordinary sense, not some GNS specific sense.

Dogs vs. Risus/OtE is a hard case; of the three, I've read Risus and played Dogs. The thing is that Risus is intended to be played for laughs somewhat, so gonzo descriptions/justifications are not only allowed but encouraged (the inappropriate trait bonus). Much also has to do the GMing ethos encouraged in the rules text; perhaps I read too much into it or buy too much into the hype of DitV being different from a reg'lar RPG, but there's a strong sense of the group having to self-police (the "most critical player" rule) while Risus doesn't seem to question the basic notion that the GM will have final say. That's important, it means that "the world" is another person, a specific other person, at the table.

With D&D vs. Dogs I think you're flat wrong; narration in D&D is optional and the ability to use a "trait" is generally noncontroversial. If you're standing next to him, you can use your sword, otherwise you have to throw or shoot something at him. Whereas with Dogs, fitting "I once whipped a man for chewing tobacco in church" into the conflict will determine if you get to roll those dice at all.

But Dogs is also problematic for me because it stands too close to the border between "storytelling" and "roleplaying"; at least that's how it gets hyped, with many of its fans insisting they immerse and get into character, and at the same claiming the game-world is fundamentally mutable based on the players' judgment. I feel much the same about TMW, while some other storygames by contrast strike me as having far more coherent goals. (Ordinary sense, not GNS sense. )

Eliot, I see your point on Dogs, that makes more sense to me now.

Quote from: Elliot WilenCorrection: they're meaningful.

Rob and others in this thread are drawing distinctions so that they can get their opinions understood.

If you like you can tell a story while playing "Tiddlywinks", but that doesn't mean anyone else has to acknowledge it as an RPG.

Perhaps it would help if you'd give an example of a published game that you think of as an RPG, or a gaming situation that you played in,  which breaks any of (a)-(d).

You mean, as an experienced gamer you haven't encountered all of those being broken in RPGs?

Lets look at those in some detail...

Quotea) Prepare the scenario/plot/adventure before the actual session

Loads of times. You've got a continuum all the way from a GM who scripts out every encounter through to those who have the characters simply wake up somewhere in a room with white walls and wings it from there. I've played games where even the genre hadn't been decided; ultimately, any game is just a framework of rules that can be adhered to or moved around, and people have been playing games that are either 'systemless' or 'genre free' (both terms that just don't work) as well as un-scripted games for, well, longer than I've been a gamer. Thing is, such things don't usually get published because theres nothing to publish.

Quoteb) control all the characters other than the one controlled by each player.

Its a standard way in which GMs in larger groups have always run games; whether individual parts of a campaign are given out to or selected by players to design, or whether its done 'on the fly', I've seen this done in games as diverse as T&T and WoD. Reading through T&T, its more or less how game world design is meant to be done (look up rebuilding cities after Monsters! Monsters! sessions).

Quotec) listens to proposed actions and make rulings on what dice rolls and/or actions are needed.

The presence of dice is neither here nor there, people have experimented with diceless games for ages. Whether resolution is by one person deciding or whether its by a collecctive view of where the narrative is going, its all just a variation of the systemless concept. And in reality, its how most conventional RPGs work for most ordinary actions. Until it comes to things that have a real, measurable difficulty most actions are detemined in a sort negotiative narrative. There is nothing at all new in that.

Quoted) describes the setting in which the player's find themselves.

The obvious example is 'Amber'. I'll also remind you of D&D settings such as Spelljammer, Planescape and suchlike where players are encouraged by many DMs to come up with their own setting or origin. Such complete freedom to design setting is quite rare in RPGs, largely because each player character usually needs to know where they are in relation to other player characters; but why do you think that this is somehow new?

This whole idea that 'storeytelling' is new and exciting in gaming, that it is somethign other than a stylised roleplaying game cocept... Gosh, how gullible are you people?

I agree, Cab. I've said as much before.