Okay, all of the comments by RPGPundit made me try out a local Storygame meet-up. It was definitely eye-opening. Now, one thing that is utterly clear is that the people stating that RPGs and Storygames are equivalent are bonkers. They are very different types of games.
We played something called MetroFinal, and while it was interesting the objectives were just different.
But what was interesting was that three of the four people at the table were new. The result was actually a pretty enjoyable game where we could jump into the action and have fun. The last time that I played D&D like that was in the early 80's (am I dating myself). The other two new players got into a pathfinder discussion during a break, where the topic was something along the lines of "if you find a way to do something silly using the rules the GM has to allow it" and this made the game less fun because the GM had a lot less room to be creative.
I think this linked in well to a lot of our discussions about D&D Next and GM agency. There are good things about the modern era of RPGs. But the sheer ability to allow newcomers to enjoy themselves is different than I usually see.
I wonder if we could learn these lessons from the Story Gamers? I am tempted to print out Basic (available from Drive Thru RPG) or see if any of the modern clones is anywhere near as simple.
Quote from: Votan;624328We played something called MetroFinal, and while it was interesting the objectives were just different.
Never heard of it. I just googled it and it seems to be a seven year old unreleased beta of a boardgame linked from someone's blog post. Do you really think that's what people are talking about when they say storygames are a kind of RPG?
Quote from: soviet;624330Never heard of it. I just googled it and it seems to be a seven year old unreleased beta of a boardgame linked from someone's blog post. Do you really think that's what people are talking about when they say storygames are a kind of RPG?
Why don't you provide Voton with a free copy of
Other Worlds so that he can try a
real authentic storygame.
Quote from: soviet;624330Never heard of it. I just googled it and it seems to be a seven year old unreleased beta of a boardgame linked from someone's blog post. Do you really think that's what people are talking about when they say storygames are a kind of RPG?
Well, it was a meet-up group called "Story Games". Maybe this was a misnomer?
The complete list of pitched games was: Metrofinal, Monsterhearts, Microscope, My Daughter: The Queen of France
There was also some discussion of Burning Empires but it did not get offered. If this is somehow different than the Ron Edwards line of games (i.e. Sorcerer) it wasn't dreadfully immediately obvious. But I suppose that it is possible that there are two hobbies with the same name . .
Quote from: Votan;624339Well, it was a meet-up group called "Story Games". Maybe this was a misnomer?
The complete list of pitched games was: Metrofinal, Monsterhearts, Microscope, My Daughter: The Queen of France
There was also some discussion of Burning Empires but it did not get offered. If this is somehow different than the Ron Edwards line of games (i.e. Sorcerer) it wasn't dreadfully immediately obvious. But I suppose that it is possible that there are two hobbies with the same name . .
Well, storygames are a spectrum. A lot of storygames (like Burning Empires and Sorcerer) are only a couple of notches away from a traditional RPG. These also tend to be the most popular storygames. A very small number of storygames are a bit more out there. What happens on this site is that criticisms that maybe apply to the latter games (that I don't give a shit about) are applied sloppily to the former games (which I do). I seem to have assigned an agenda to your OP that wasn't there, sorry about that mate.
Jeff's right though, Other Worlds is great, you should buy it today! :)
Quote from: soviet;624347Jeff's right though, Other Worlds is great, you should buy it today!
And if you were a publisher worth a gamer's time, you would give your game to this man for free. You have claimed that your game is great, so let Votan have a copy for free and let him play it in order to prove your claim.
Quote from: jeff37923;624348And if you were a publisher worth a gamer's time, you would give your game to this man for free. You have claimed that your game is great, so let Votan have a copy for free and let him play it in order to prove your claim.
Your logic is faulty here. Why does this necessarily follow? So TSR sucked because they charged for D&D and AD&D?
-clash
Quote from: soviet;624347Well, storygames are a spectrum. A lot of storygames (like Burning Empires and Sorcerer) are only a couple of notches away from a traditional RPG. These also tend to be the most popular storygames. A very small number of storygames are a bit more out there. What happens on this site is that criticisms that maybe apply to the latter games (that I don't give a shit about) are applied sloppily to the former games (which I do). I seem to have assigned an agenda to your OP that wasn't there, sorry about that mate.
Jeff's right though, Other Worlds is great, you should buy it today! :)
Let me browse and see what it is like (other Worlds). Who sells it?
No problems re: agenda. I was mostly commenting on how this reinforced my intuition that a low barrier to entry yet fun starter game would be very, very good for the RPG hobby. Something like the Moldavy Basic set, where you could imagine a lunch hour adventure at a high school.
A long lost poster (Justin Alexander) used to discuss an Open Table concept, which I think would match some of the same feel.
Quote from: Votan;624328... "if you find a way to do something silly using the rules the GM has to allow it" ...
I wonder if we could learn these lessons from the Story Gamers? ...
Some of us have. I went on a nearly two year long journey playing various story games. My experience taught me;
1) People don't generally roleplay from a first person "in character" perspective. It's like they're directing parts in a play. This pulled me straight out of the world of make-believe. I felt like we were literally collaborating on the design of a movie script. Under a different circumstance this could've been great fun, if someone hadn't tried to convince me it's just like my roleplaying, only better.
2) Things get gonzo. Every time. People get weird at the story game table, trying to accomplish things that seem WAY out of genre just because they can. Again, this constantly pulled me out of the world of make-believe and made my experiences less enjoyable. I constantly felt like I had no idea what to expect next (Alice in Wonderland effect?). Worse, I felt like this affected my connection to the game. It never felt as intense or involved to me.
I still feel like it's a preferences thing. If people enjoy story games, they should play them. I however learned from playing them. These are not the games I'm looking for.
Quote from: flyingmice;624357Your logic is faulty here. Why does this necessarily follow? So TSR sucked because they charged for D&D and AD&D?
-clash
soviet has put forth the claim that his game is great, so let him prove it by giving his game away to Votan for free to let him try it.
TSR happened in a different time with a different brand of hucksterism in play.
Quote from: trechriron;624360Some of us have. I went on a nearly two year long journey playing various story games. My experience taught me;
1) People don't generally roleplay from a first person "in character" perspective. It's like they're directing parts in a play. This pulled me straight out of the world of make-believe. I felt like we were literally collaborating on the design of a movie script. Under a different circumstance this could've been great fun, if someone hadn't tried to convince me it's just like my roleplaying, only better.
and that's the weird part, the proselytization. The games are
specifically designed to give you that narrative feel. System Matters, that's the whole point of the Forge and narrative movement. Do NOT be like White Wolf, who put out a completely traditional system and called it Storytelling, use actual mechanics to tell stories. Then when someone says they don't like that
specifically crafted to be different experience, the response is, "well this is no different, really, just better." :eek: Soviet and John admit differences, even Anon says calling Dungeon World "old school" is inappropriate and weird (because despite the arguments, these guys are level headed and honest), but sewers like awfulpurple are filled with these...hell...groupies is as good a term as any, who end up taking the game they like, and proceed to convince other people to run screaming away from it.
Quote from: trechriron;6243602) Things get gonzo. Every time. People get weird at the story game table, trying to accomplish things that seem WAY out of genre just because they can. Again, this constantly pulled me out of the world of make-believe and made my experiences less enjoyable. I constantly felt like I had no idea what to expect next (Alice in Wonderland effect?). Worse, I felt like this affected my connection to the game. It never felt as intense or involved to me.
I feel like that even without the extreme gonzo, so I can understand what you mean.
Quote from: trechriron;624360I still feel like it's a preferences thing. If people enjoy story games, they should play them. I however learned from playing them. These are not the games I'm looking for.
Absolutely, do your own thing and have fun doing it. Just stop trying to convince people this is Roleplaying 2.0, an advance and purification of the form.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624366Just stop trying to convince people this is Roleplaying 2.0, an advance and purification of the form.
You and trechriron, i finally thank you for describing what a "storygame" actually is.
(The reason why White Wolf called their system "The Storytelling System" was probably because they 1) Wanted to focus more on the narrative/plot and 2) mark themselves as thus having a different focus than the more rules-complex D&D and Palladium.)
By the way, from the description of Storygames that you have given, it sounds like a cross between rpg and pre-production of a play, screenplay, or even a computergame ....
I agree with trechriron, it is not my kind of rpg, and i agree with you, it is clearly not "rpg2.0".
If anything, it is a divergation of the form, and it is only puryfing a few aspects of it, and not the full concept of an rpg.
(I like to see my rpg-system as 2.0, but noone seems to agree with me ... yet ... but then, perhaps it is just at 1.8, currently :D )
I know hereabouts we have a Meetup group that call themselves storygamers who focus on boardgames that 'tell stories'... by which they mean things like Arkham Horror, Fury Of Dracula, Ghost Stories, etc... no actual roleplaying games or those other 'Storygame' things (the other Meetup boardgame group here is for 'Eurogames' like Ticket To Ride, Carcassone, Tulip Mania, Power Grid, etc.).
So that adds to my confusion as to what sort of game the OP was actually playing.
With "story" as the defining term, a lot could fall under the rubric.
Back in the 1980s, the two games that I most identified with the category were:
Kenneth Rahman's Dark Cults (Dark House Publishing, 1983) -- a card game in which one team represents the forces of Life, their opponents those of Death
Eric Goldberg's Tales of the Arabian Nights (West End Games, 1985) -- a "paragraph-system board game"
Each of those involved story telling (in the straightforward, common sense understood by the general public) at some point.
At one point, I experimented with what I thought of as a "hybrid" using RPG-style mechanisms but with more improvised and abstract (compared with simulation-type) factors. By analogy with more recent games, it was sort of like Risus in loose structure, but with dice rolling more like Hero Wars.
What I considered the main "dramatic game" innovation was that, for instance, Tarzan might be just as badass when equipped with his customary knife and loin cloth as some other figure in armor with a sword, or a third packing a pair of six-guns. Another was just a little extension of the way combats in D&D were often played out: the dice were rolled, and then description of what happened was based on that (so, abstract game-mechanical results were determined first, then specific game-world causes and effects).
There was nothing in any of these games to do with the kind of "plot line adventure" that started to appear in RPG publishing. I had great success with a couple of scenarios of that sort that I designed for use with pretty typical RPG rules sets.
Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant: The Story-Telling Game (Chaosium, 1989) had more of the usual panoply of RPG rules systems, but it also had rules that specifically gave players "authorial" powers (as opposed to controlling only things their characters controlled). It emphasized somewhat plotted adventures (rather than environments for exploration) from the start.
Quote from: jeff37923;624365soviet has put forth the claim that his game is great, so let him prove it by giving his game away to Votan for free to let him try it.
TSR happened in a different time with a different brand of hucksterism in play.
Every other publisher and author here says their games are great, too. Should they give their games away free? Should we have a sticky "Download your free copies of Arrows of Indra and Lords of Olympus here!" topic?
Quote from: Votan;624328But what was interesting was that three of the four people at the table were new.
...
The last time that I played D&D like that was in the early 80's (am I dating myself).
...
But the sheer ability to allow newcomers to enjoy themselves is different than I usually see.
I wonder if we could learn these lessons from the Story Gamers? I am tempted to print out Basic (available from Drive Thru RPG) or see if any of the modern clones is anywhere near as simple.
Snipped some of your text for clarity.
So, if there is anything to learn from other styles of play--which I am sure there is--what is it? To get to the bottom of it, maybe you could consider the elements of what actually went on in the game:
- did you have someone with experience facilitating? If so, what behaviours did they show? The GM could do that.
- did you play to a simple set of rules that restricted actions, making decisions easy? Picking certain systems could deliver that.
- did you draw maps, use play aids (cards, pieces, etc)? I assume you did. Did those enhance play and if so why (e.g. did the cards function as useful reminders of rules?)
- did you feel unconstrained by the system or the world other than a few well-defined boundaries? That could be delivered by system or by world design.
- did you feel the world was a particularly strong setting that the newcomers "got" right away?
All of these can be applied to trad RPGs to make it easier for newcomers.
Or was there some other magic ingredient?
---
Also, my copy of LotFP is identical mechanically to Basic D&D, it just differs in art and tone. It is nice and simple, which is what I like. Can't speak for the other modern retroclones though I expect DCC is way more complicated.
Quote from: Phillip;624378Back in the 1980s, the two games that I most identified with the category were:
Kenneth Rahman's Dark Cults (Dark House Publishing, 1983) -- a card game in which one team represents the forces of Life, their opponents those of Death
Eric Goldberg's Tales of the Arabian Nights (West End Games, 1985) -- a "paragraph-system board game"
Yeah, for me it was 'Once Upon A Time'... which is a great game.
Also, since this thread is called Story Games versus Traditional RPGs, I thought I’d recall an experience I’ve had this weekend.
We played Archipelago and then A Taste For Murder. Both are games involving playing roles in scenes, very differently from a RPG.
In Archipelago you are “telling an epic story”. Your character has a destiny they work towards and you declare what is happening in each scene beforehand. As you narrate the scene (with challenges from the other players if I am wimping out, etc) you draw the other players in to play other characters.
What struck me about Archipelago was not the metagame, nor the directorial style of play. It was the way I’m stewarding my “PC”, but I’m treating him as an NPC with an agenda. When I bring in other players to play “NPCs” to fill scene roles they are reacting to my character with an agenda; their behaviour is more PC-like than my character’s. In other words, it’s an almost complete inversion of our accepted PC-NPC roleplaying dynamics.
As for A Taste For Murder, it’s functionally similar but it revolves around an exchange of dice to weaken some character’s influences making them more susceptible to investigation--and thus to being the murderer. There’s no alibi, no motive, no clues, it’s all about extrapolating the relationships in a rather mechanical fashion.
I might try Archipelago on a newcomer but the concepts and motives for that kind of play are more abstract than a simple beginner’s RPG. I think the barriers to entry are higher, not lower.
Also, we enjoyed building the Archipelago world much more than we enjoyed actual play.
Quote from: Phillip;624378Eric Goldberg's Tales of the Arabian Nights (West End Games, 1985) -- a "paragraph-system board game"
That one's still around, and I happen to have the latest edition published by Z-Man a couple of years ago. To elaborate, it's a hybrid between a board game and a Choose Your Own Adventure book. The encounter cards drawn while you move around the map point the players to specific entries in a 300-page "Book of Tales", with some wiggle room from the character abilities and a roll of a Fudge die.
Quote from: CRKrueger;624366Absolutely, do your own thing and have fun doing it. Just stop trying to convince people this is Roleplaying 2.0, an advance and purification of the form.
Indeed, it's not storygames versus trad RPGs, it's 'some other hobby' versus RPGs.
Quote from: Ladybird;624380Every other publisher and author here says their games are great, too. Should they give their games away free? Should we have a sticky "Download your free copies of Arrows of Indra and Lords of Olympus here!" topic?
If they are storygames, then the answer is "YES!!!"
Quote from: Ladybird;624380Every other publisher and author here says their games are great, too. Should they give their games away free? Should we have a sticky "Download your free copies of Arrows of Indra and Lords of Olympus here!" topic?
I must point out, that my "Streed Core Rules"
is free ....
Sorry, couldn't help it ... i think.
:D
Quote from: smiorgan;624385Snipped some of your text for clarity.
So, if there is anything to learn from other styles of play--which I am sure there is--what is it? To get to the bottom of it, maybe you could consider the elements of what actually went on in the game:
- did you have someone with experience facilitating? If so, what behaviours did they show? The GM could do that.
- did you play to a simple set of rules that restricted actions, making decisions easy? Picking certain systems could deliver that.
- did you draw maps, use play aids (cards, pieces, etc)? I assume you did. Did those enhance play and if so why (e.g. did the cards function as useful reminders of rules?)
- did you feel unconstrained by the system or the world other than a few well-defined boundaries? That could be delivered by system or by world design.
- did you feel the world was a particularly strong setting that the newcomers "got" right away?
All of these can be applied to trad RPGs to make it easier for newcomers.
Or was there some other magic ingredient?
---
Also, my copy of LotFP is identical mechanically to Basic D&D, it just differs in art and tone. It is nice and simple, which is what I like. Can't speak for the other modern retroclones though I expect DCC is way more complicated.
I have and like the LotFP Deluxe edition. The Grindhouse edition had interesting art but it makes me reluctant to bring it out at a public gathering (I don't object to it, but even the box says 18+).
The reason I posted my reactions was that the feel reminded me of RPGs 20 years ago. There was a facilitator who explained the basic rules structure and gently nudged things if we went too far afield.
Characters were dealt out randomly. I think the speed with which this piece happened reminded me of why 3d6 in order (or something like that) was invented. It speeds up play if you don't need to make complex character creation decisions. Or the player cards that came with the Karamiekos and Galntri booked sets would have had the precise same role.
There was a map. It functioned much more like a dungeon map than anything else. There was a lack of randomness, which was a downside. All of the pretty dice held down the map corners.
But the major thing that impressed me was the ability to explain rules fast and move into actual (successful) play in a single afternoon. Really old versions of D&D had the same ability and I think it was a powerful tool in making the games accessible to newcomers. It is not that story games should replace RPGs (any more than poker should replace RPGs) but that it was neat to be reminded of the reasons for old design decisions that seem unpopular to a lot of modern groups (Pathfinder doesn't even theoretically support fast character creation).
Now accessibility may not be the goal of the players or the designers. And that is perfectly fine.
Quote from: Ladybird;624380Every other publisher and author here says their games are great, too. Should they give their games away free? Should we have a sticky "Download your free copies of Arrows of Indra and Lords of Olympus here!" topic?
I was about to say exactly the same, Ladybird! :D
-clash
To be honest I wouldn't take a free storygame. They'd have to throw in a twenty to sweeten the deal.
And even then I'd only accept it as a PDF.
Quote from: Votan;624495There was a facilitator who explained the basic rules structure and gently nudged things if we went too far afield.
Characters were dealt out randomly. I think the speed with which this piece happened reminded me of why 3d6 in order (or something like that) was invented. It speeds up play if you don't need to make complex character creation decisions. Or the player cards that came with the Karamiekos and Galntri booked sets would have had the precise same role.
There was a map. It functioned much more like a dungeon map than anything else. There was a lack of randomness, which was a downside. All of the pretty dice held down the map corners.
But the major thing that impressed me was the ability to explain rules fast and move into actual (successful) play in a single afternoon. Really old versions of D&D had the same ability and I think it was a powerful tool in making the games accessible to newcomers. It is not that story games should replace RPGs (any more than poker should replace RPGs) but that it was neat to be reminded of the reasons for old design decisions that seem unpopular to a lot of modern groups (Pathfinder doesn't even theoretically support fast character creation).
Now accessibility may not be the goal of the players or the designers. And that is perfectly fine.
(cut a bit)
So... facilitator, prepared character sheets, map, clear rules. All achievable with a range of RPGs just as much as story, board or other games.
Sounds like the organisers tried really hard to make it a good introductory session with great planning and leadership, and selecting the right ruleset for newcomers. Good for them! If I were you I'd feed back to the organisers on how you felt (if you haven't already).
I can't understand why accessibility would not be a goal of a designer. It's fine to make an obscure game as you say, but my number one goal is to make myself understood, regardless of experience of the player.
Quote from: Votan;624328Okay, all of the comments by RPGPundit made me try out a local Storygame meet-up.
oh the sweet ambrosia of irony ;-)
Quote from: Votan;624339The complete list of pitched games was: Metrofinal, Monsterhearts, Microscope, My Daughter: The Queen of France
Monsterhearts and Microscope I have heard of, both definitely the sort of game commonly thought of as storygames.
Quote from: jeff37923;624365soviet has put forth the claim that his game is great, so let him prove it by giving his game away to Votan for free to let him try it.
I don't feel that's a fair demand to be making of him.
RPGPundit
Yeah, at most, if you want to criticize the guy, ding him for not having a free quick-start available.
For what it's worth, MetroFinal (the game mentioned in the OP) is in beta release and free from the author in that form. Also, it does not call itself an RPG. (I haven't played it myself.)
http://corvidsun.com/2011/11/05/metrofinal-beta-released/
Quote from: jhkim;624666For what it's worth, MetroFinal (the game mentioned in the OP) is in beta release and free from the author in that form. Also, it does not call itself an RPG. (I haven't played it myself.)
http://corvidsun.com/2011/11/05/metrofinal-beta-released/
Yep, that was definitely it
Quote from: Simlasa;624386Yeah, for me it was 'Once Upon A Time'... which is a great game.
A really awesome game.....
Forever ruined for me because of a somewhat disturbing use of an ending card many years ago.
Its amazing the amount of wrong that can be communicated by four little words.
"....and it fit perfectly"
Quote from: CRKrueger;624581Yeah, at most, if you want to criticize the guy, ding him for not having a free quick-start available.
Can't even do that I'm afraid! :D
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/98108/Other-Worlds-Free-Preview-Edition (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/98108/Other-Worlds-Free-Preview-Edition)
Quote from: soviet;624808Can't even do that I'm afraid! :D
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/98108/Other-Worlds-Free-Preview-Edition (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/98108/Other-Worlds-Free-Preview-Edition)
The
Bastard!
My definition of RPG is any game where I can play from a character's PoV
at some point in the process of play. Yes, it is broad, but I also define board games as anything that can be played on a board.
So things like Chess and Go are not RPGs (no character perspective). And things like Universalis are Storygames to me (cannot act from character perspective), but everything else is a gray area.
Quote from: trechriron;6243601) People don't generally roleplay from a first person "in character" perspective.
While some games may focus more on character PoV than others, what you describe is almost always a product of confidence and comfort rather than taste. And the safer people feel in a group, the more likely they are to take their character's PoV.
You can even see a transition between children and adults pretty clearly. Young kids take character PoV almost exclusive. Adolescents take character PoV most of the time, but will break character if something occurs which doesn't match their expectations. Adults take a director's PoV most of the time, to maintain control, consensus, and emotional distance.
It has NOTHING to do with Storygames specifically. I've seen people play 'Storygames' (like Fiasco) by describing what their character says instead of just saying it. So far so good, but I see the same players play 'RPGs' exactly the same way.
Quote from: trechriron;6243602) Things get gonzo. Every time. People get weird at the story game table, trying to accomplish things that seem WAY out of genre just because they can.
If this is happening then it's either a badly designed Storygame or the players are ignoring the rules. Because the whole point of a Storygame is to focus premise, theme, and tone.
There's a reason Improv is almost always gonzo. It's because the rules to freeform Improv do not constrain results enough to explicitly avoid it, and because gonzo is
safe. It's all about issues of emotional safety.
For example, there's no rule in freeform Improv that says I can't propose I just ran over my cat with a car. But most of the time that proposition will be built on for comedy effect because
who the hell wants to deal with the genuine emotional repercussions of that as characters? And if you treat any important topic such as health care, torture, right to choose, gun ownership, global warming in any other way, you risk triggering someone. Again, all about emotional safety.
FUCK THAT NOISE! >_< That's not why I play. Gonzo is fun, but even in that I want something a little more open, honest, and substantial.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;624767A really awesome game.....
Forever ruined for me because of a somewhat disturbing use of an ending card many years ago.
Its amazing the amount of wrong that can be communicated by four little words.
"....and it fit perfectly"
Many of the "Happy Ever After" cards in
Once Upon a Time tend to be ambiguous enough for
unhappy endings: for example, "They ate it at the feast and it was delicious", "So he realized how loyal his brother had been", or "And when they died they passed it on to their children".
I have no problem with separating some games as 'not rpgs', after all boardgames cardgames and video games are, ime, not rpgs either. What annoys me is this bizarre one man crusade against a proposition that has no evidential basis: that these games and, more importantly, their creators are actively destroying those things that are rpgs, and that this necessitates active manouevreing of threads on this board according to some paranoid sorting hat process. Neither of those things are productive.
I have yet to find a story game that interests me, but their existence, even those that really do some like a load of tosh, doesn't offend me nor impinge on my own interests. This hobby survived hobby game stores giving space over to Magic the Gathering (and all that passed after it, including the insanity of Pokemon), I don't think any of these games, where they are even sold, is going to do any worse.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010My definition of RPG is any game where I can play from a character's PoV at some point in the process of play. .., but everything else is a gray area.
I don't agree with your definition of an RPG. If you're not playing from a character's perspective, you're not roleplaying IMO. You're certainly playing a game. I don't mind that the games exist or people play them, hell I played various "story" games for years. I think there are some creative and savvy people making these games. My experience is not a value judgement of the people or the games. It IS a value judgement regarding my feelings about playing those games.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010While some games may focus more on character PoV than others, what you describe is almost always a product of confidence and comfort rather than taste. And the safer people feel in a group, the more likely they are to take their character's PoV.
You can even see a transition between children and adults pretty clearly. Young kids take character PoV almost exclusive. Adolescents take character PoV most of the time, but will break character if something occurs which doesn't match their expectations. Adults take a director's PoV most of the time, to maintain control, consensus, and emotional distance.
I've had 14 year old girls roll up on a group at a demo at the FLGS, ham it up in first person, and play it up like a pro. I've had 50 year old veterans direct 3rd person non-committal game play like a socially reclusive (what I thought would be) 14 year old girl. I don't care if you're not confident or emotionally secure. I just want you to play a character, from that character's POV. I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but my experience informs me that these games are designed with a heaping helping of meta game involvement. That HAS to impact game play regardless of a player's emotional maturity. After playing several of these games, I believe that factor is more profound than a player's emotional security.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010It has NOTHING to do with Storygames specifically. I've seen people play 'Storygames' (like Fiasco) by describing what their character says instead of just saying it. So far so good, but I see the same players play 'RPGs' exactly the same way.
I disagree. Your example speaks to what I think storygames are encouraging in game play. It is true some players play RPGs in 3rd person. I don't like that either. I encourage players in my games to work past any "fear" and just get into it. I've had great success encouraging people to do so. My experience with storygames, is they have mechanics that encourage the "director's" stance. I appreciate you feel it has nothing to do with it, but my experience informs me differently.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010If this is happening then it's either a badly designed Storygame or the players are ignoring the rules. Because the whole point of a Storygame is to focus premise, theme, and tone.
The games I have played or ran are touted as some of the best designed story games; Mountain Witch, Dogs in the Vineyard, Fiasco, Dread, Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies, Lady Blackbird, Tech Noir and a couple I have forgot the names of. I appreciate the "point" of Story Games, I was well versed in Forge theory, have been schooled by several indie game designers on why they made the choices they made, and I think I have a pretty clear understanding of the design principles. These games are designed to evoke a different play style. Period. It's a hallmark for these designers and the games do work as designed. I just don't consider that play style to be fun. I also have experienced the effect it has on the players at the table and these games do not encourage a play style I appreciate. Perhaps others' experience is different.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625010... It's all about issues of emotional safety.
I don't want to psychoanalyze people's emotional security at my table. I just want to play and have fun. Story games yielded very little fun for me. I found the whole 3rd person director let's game our game style to be trying. Your thoughts on improv and gonzo are nice. For you. I just don't like that crap at my table. Maybe if the genre calls for it, and we're playing a lighter game. But again, my experience was a constant jarring me out of character and out of belief as the antics at the table were what I consider gonzo (<--pejorative).
I would like to shift the nomenclature to a taxonomy like this:
story games
|
RPGs -- non-RPGs
|
traditional -- non-traditional
I think that
(a) it's needlessly awkward to be calling games that centrally involve role-playing "not role-playing games", and games that centrally involve emergence of story (more on which later) "not story games"
(b) the terms are being applied in a very pariochial fashion that may not be clear to the much larger majority of the game-playing public
I have in mind the confusion and disputation engendered by people who call this or that game of war "not a wargame," when the really useful distinction is that it's not designed as a simulation.
The currently developing situation is fraught with negative emotions; Al and Bob can easily agree that their tastes differ, but when they accuse each other of "not playing an RPG" sparks may fly.
I think a game probably fits in the "story game" category if it often seems worthwhile to point out how it's not like a novel or TV show. That's been the case with RPGs ever since D&D moved beyond its initial audience of wargamers.
Story does not necessarily mean "predetermined story." A real-life biography is a story; whether it is deterministic or probabilistic is something we cannot know from this frame of reference, but most people seem to have a sense of "free will."
Fiction ranges from the "slice of life" packed with verisimilitude to the artfully "well-crafted tale." Games can head in either direction, regardless of other elements.
Most "traditional" RPGs are also wargames, but not all wargames are RPGs. Likewise, despite the focus of interest at Web sites such as this, not all story games involve playing the role of a particular character.
Among those that do, some limit players to doing what their characters can do, while others allow them out-of-character options.
Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't agree with your definition of an RPG. If you're not playing from a character's perspective, you're not roleplaying IMO. You're certainly playing a game. I don't mind that the games exist or people play them, hell I played various "story" games for years. I think there are some creative and savvy people making these games. My experience is not a value judgement of the people or the games. It IS a value judgement regarding my feelings about playing those games.
So where does
World of Warcraft fit into your model? It is certainly described by some as an MMORPG.
It's (by definition) not a traditional boardgame, wargame, or tabletop RPG.
It can be be played as a FPS, without any RP element at all.
It can be played in character on "RP servers", with heavy emphasis on chat-roleplaying. We would all likely agree the ruleset is not conducive to that kind of gameplay (since the game focus is about splatting mobs and bosses), but that's simply a limitation of the current format and technology, it's not too hard to imagine a WoW2 that made such social roleplaying a more feasible aspect of the game.
For myself I see all these games, including D&D, V:TM, MLWM, as overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.
Is Hold'Em Poker an RPG? By the strict definition some would like to apply, of course not. Maths, reading your opponent, and luck, are key pillars of the game. But there is definitely a degree of roleplaying involved as well. I'm a better poker player because of my years of experience rolling d20s.
Quote from: Motorskills;625488So where does World of Warcraft fit into your model? It is certainly described by some as an MMORPG. ...
For myself I see all these games, including D&D, V:TM, MLWM, as overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.
Is Hold'Em Poker an RPG? ...
WoW is a computer game. I play tabletop in-person roleplaying games. I wouldn't consider it (or any computer games) for my "model". Also, you won't be convincing me anytime soon that they fall into any model for RPGs.
I don't play most computer games (a few RTS things here and there, but generally don't play 'em). I don't consider any computer games to currently support my desire for 1st person in-character interaction.
I can buy into the idea of a Venn diagram. Just note that I will point at my happy place on it and probably not enjoy much else mapped on it. You can argue that games include some elements of roleplaying to varying degrees. I just probably won't enjoy many of them. :-)
Quote from: trechriron;625549WoW is a computer game. I play tabletop in-person roleplaying games. I wouldn't consider it (or any computer games) for my "model". Also, you won't be convincing me anytime soon that they fall into any model for RPGs.
I don't play most computer games (a few RTS things here and there, but generally don't play 'em). I don't consider any computer games to currently support my desire for 1st person in-character interaction.
I can buy into the idea of a Venn diagram. Just note that I will point at my happy place on it and probably not enjoy much else mapped on it. You can argue that games include some elements of roleplaying to varying degrees. I just probably won't enjoy many of them. :-)
I do appreciate your position. I guess my frustration is with the one-true-wayism espoused by those who argue that roleplaying games can only equate to (old-school) tabletop role-playing games.
Role-playing games precede D&D, and new variants (LARP for example) crop up all the time.
The reason I roll my eyes is that even for OSTTRPGs
a) you don't need a tabletop any more, new technology allows a wide variety of formats
b) D&D didn't start out as a roleplaying game
For me the Venn diagram model does work very well. And I would hesitate to put D&D even at the heart of the model. To me it's just another circle, albeit a large, popular, and important one.
While _I_ don't find WoW an enjoyable roleplaying experience, I'm certainly not going to snipe at those gamers that do RP their WoW characters. That style of gaming is a circle, and it does overlap with other elements of the hobby, albeit in a limited way.
"Role playing" certainly precedes D&D; but the "Role Playing Game" starts with D&D. It has produced certain notable variants, like "Computer RPGs" (and its subset, MMORPGs), or "Live Action Role Playing Games" (though you could in fact argue that LARPing also predated the tabletop RPG, it just wasn't termed a "roleplaying game" until well after tabletop RPGs emerged).
Storygames also emerged from RPGs. Like LARPing or computer-RPGs (tabletop RPGs' other offspring) or Wargames (RPGs' "ancestor"), they too are a different hobby. The chief foundation of my argument against Storygames is that their advocates refuse to recognize themselves as such.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;626211The chief foundation of my argument against Storygames is that their advocates refuse to recognize themselves as such.
RPGPundit
and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.
Quote from: RPGPundit;626211"Role playing" certainly precedes D&D; but the "Role Playing Game" starts with D&D. It has produced certain notable variants, like "Computer RPGs" (and its subset, MMORPGs), or "Live Action Role Playing Games" (though you could in fact argue that LARPing also predated the tabletop RPG, it just wasn't termed a "roleplaying game" until well after tabletop RPGs emerged).
Storygames also emerged from RPGs. Like LARPing or computer-RPGs (tabletop RPGs' other offspring) or Wargames (RPGs' "ancestor"), they too are a different hobby. The chief foundation of my argument against Storygames is that their advocates refuse to recognize themselves as such.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;626278and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.
I have to say I don't consider it a different hobby, and I am pretty sure you would have a hard time convincing a non-gamer of the fact as well.
I think the main flaw with your argument Pundit are those games that have a foot in both camps (even if they haven't been written yet :)).
Something like chess-boxing is a deliberate attempt to weld two seemingly-incompatible hobbies together, and they really had to contort the fabric of reality to mesh them together as they did. (Looks hella fun though! :))
But a storygame with OSTTRPG elements is much easier to imagine, as would an OSTTRPG that featured storygame chapters.
But I think more importantly, the need to create such a firm division between the two hobbies (if you will) only serves to inhibit innovation IMO.
TLDR - the walls are thin, perhaps illusory, and are potentially damaging to the wider gaming hobby.
Quote from: Motorskills;626457I think the main flaw with your argument Pundit are those games that have a foot in both camps (even if they haven't been written yet :)).
Something like chess-boxing is a deliberate attempt to weld two seemingly-incompatible hobbies together, and they really had to contort the fabric of reality to mesh them together as they did. (Looks hella fun though! :))
But a storygame with OSTTRPG elements is much easier to imagine, as would an OSTTRPG that featured storygame chapters.
But I think more importantly, the need to create such a firm division between the two hobbies (if you will) only serves to inhibit innovation IMO.
TLDR - the walls are thin, perhaps illusory, and are potentially damaging to the wider gaming hobby.
Take a look at the link in my sig. The storygame one, not Rob Zombie, although I recommend a daily dose of that as well for a healthy constitution and a robust complexion.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;626278and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.
Around here, "story game" is typically defined as a game with significant mechanics that call for players other than the single GM to do out-of-character narration. On the Story Games forum, there currently tends to be a broader definition of "story game" that includes Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: The Masquerade, or other RPGs that talk about story and/or genre emulation.
Claiming it is a separate hobby is completely off, though, in my opinion.
(1) A large fraction of traditional RPG players regularly drop out of character, even for in-game decisions. (i.e. "OK, we've got an hour left before Jens has to catch his train. What should we do?").
(2) There is a difference between dropping out of character by preference as opposed to dropping out of character based on the rules. However, it seems a stretch to say that one defines a completely different hobby than the other.
(3) There is a smooth spectrum of games with fewer and more meta-game mechanics, and there is a smooth and overlapping distribution of players among these systems.
(4) Arguing for separateness is pointless to reducing the influence, because even if something is accepted as a different hobby, it doesn't prevent there being cross-over and cross-influence.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;626278and yet you still cannot define what constitutes a story game.
I can, I've done so hundreds of times at this point, and I don't feel any need to humor a known troll who knows this as well.
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Traveller;626464Take a look at the link in my sig. The storygame one, not Rob Zombie, although I recommend a daily dose of that as well for a healthy constitution and a robust complexion.
Well I
was there, you know. :D
Just because (if) Ron Edwards was wrong, and offensive with it*, doesn't autmatically make the people he was slamming correct. So much blood was spilled over those GNS fights people are entrenched to the point of blinkeredness.
*because
that never happens around here, eh (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=611914&postcount=47)?
I mean, just look at the rest of that thread you linked, you've got well-established RPGsite posters who can't even agree on differential definitions (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=617895&postcount=151). The simplest explanation is that there isn't one, or at least if you could find one there would likely need to be so many exceptions as to make the rule meaningless.
It's Pundit's board and he can chop up the sub-forums any way he likes, but it doesn't mean things are going to easily fall into his increasingly-arbitrary categories.
"The role of the traditional GM is corrosive to the hobby."
No it
isn't. It's a fantastic tool for pre-creating a defined storypath and for establishing an us-versus-them dynamic.
But it's
just a tool. There are other tools for creating the same things, and I would argue you don't need either of those outcomes to have a great shared RPG experience.
Refusal to accept that arguably
is corrosive to the hobby.
I don't need a "storygame" to achieve those things either. But they sit side-by-side with my OSTTRPGs on my bookshelf.
Quote from: Motorskills;626506Well I was there, you know. :D
I bet.
Quote from: Motorskills;626506Just because (if) Ron Edwards was wrong, and offensive with it*, doesn't autmatically make the people he was slamming correct. So much blood was spilled over those GNS fights people are entrenched to the point of blinkeredness.
No, you've just completely ignored the link in my sig and the facts therein.
Quote from: Motorskills;626506*because that never happens around here, eh (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=611914&postcount=47)?
I mean, just look at the rest of that thread you linked, you've got well-established RPGsite posters who can't even agree on differential definitions (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=617895&postcount=151). The simplest explanation is that there isn't one, or at least if you could find one there would likely need to be so many exceptions as to make the rule meaningless.
I find it interesting that you are knowledgeable on the particulars of my posting history. In contrast I have no idea about yours and have no desire to find out more.
Quote from: Motorskills;626506It's Pundit's board and he can chop up the sub-forums any way he likes, but it doesn't mean things are going to easily fall into his increasingly-arbitrary categories.
What does this even mean? You're crying about how shared narrative games get shunted to 'other games'? Why? Nobody is stopping you from talking about them. There is no censorship here, or at least far, far less than almost any other board I've used. In fact the tolerance in these parts has come close upon occasion to disrupting the entire site, a testament to the dedication people have to a healthy environment for discourse. You'll never get banned for having a different opinion here.
Only someone not interested in genuine honest debate could have a problem with that.
Quote from: Motorskills;626506"The role of the traditional GM is corrosive to the hobby."
No it isn't. It's a fantastic tool for pre-creating a defined storypath and for establishing an us-versus-them dynamic.
But it's just a tool. There are other tools for creating the same things, and I would argue you don't need either of those outcomes to have a great shared RPG experience.
Refusal to accept that arguably is corrosive to the hobby.
You completely misunderstand the role of a GM. Luckily enough I have an entire thread dedicated to just that subject on the front page. Please feel free to peruse that chapter of my posts as well.
Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't agree with your definition of an RPG. If you're not playing from a character's perspective, you're not roleplaying IMO.
I agree (and also didn't define RPGs as such in the first place). But all RPGs have a point where they must be played from the player's PoV.
Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't care if you're not confident or emotionally secure. I just want you to play a character, from that character's POV. I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but my experience informs me that these games are designed with a heaping helping of meta game involvement. That HAS to impact game play regardless of a player's emotional maturity. After playing several of these games, I believe that factor is more profound than a player's emotional security.
On the one hand system does matter. On the other, games like Fiasco can be played either way, and the choice is largely dependent on how comfortable/confident the person doing it is, because none of the mechanics encourage one way or the other when in a scene.
It's a spectrum, which is why I think the RPG/Storygame absolutes are useless.
Quote from: trechriron;625215My experience with storygames, is they have mechanics that encourage the "director's" stance. I appreciate you feel it has nothing to do with it, but my experience informs me differently.
And again I agree. The point is that there's a spectrum, and this Director stance can be a greater or lesser part of play.
Quote from: trechriron;625215I don't want to psychoanalyze people's emotional security at my table. I just want to play and have fun.
Thing is that this is a foundational skill for GMs, and not a bad one to have as a player. Because often someone doesn't know when they're stepping on someone else's fun. Yes, adults should be able to state when there's a problem and discuss, but it's surprising how often that doesn't happen, even among people who know each other well.
Quote from: The Traveller;626510I find it interesting that you are knowledgeable on the particulars of my posting history. In contrast I have no idea about yours and have no desire to find out more.
Since you're quoting me (as well as Warpig) in the link in your sig, you're either lying or too stupid to converse with.
Quote from: Motorskills;626566Since you're quoting me (as well as Warpig) in the link in your sig, you're either lying or too stupid to converse with.
That was of course a reference to the goonbaiting of soviet that you handily managed to pluck out of the many posts and threads I have made. An episode which incidentally still provides me with much merriment. As far as your quote in the link, that would be more in the nature of watching someone march determinedly straight off a cliff.
It's not entirely surprising that you've no response to the majority of my comment however, electing instead to stoop to personal abuse.
Quote from: The Traveller;626570That was of course a reference to the goonbaiting of soviet that you handily managed to pluck out of the many posts and threads I have made. An episode which incidentally still provides me with much merriment. As far as your quote in the link, that would be more in the nature of watching someone march determinedly straight off a cliff.
It's not entirely surprising that you've no response to the majority of my comment however, electing instead to stoop to personal abuse.
I was (and still am) prepared to respond, but you indicated that you weren't interested in what I had to say......
Quote from: jhkim;626477Around here, "story game" is typically defined as a game with significant mechanics that call for players other than the single GM to do out-of-character narration.
Where "narration" means players editing the game world, as if they were a designer or GM.
Simultaneously being (by way of analogy) player and GM, along with a few other people doing the same thing, is a very different dynamic than roleplaying a character.
In RPG's, you are playing pretend, limited by the constraints of the world (as presented by the GM). In narrative games, you are yourself, authoring the fictional world as if you were GM. (Simming, in other words.)
Those are not the same thing. I truly do not know why narrativists cannot grasp that, even theoretically. YOU may think they're identical, but I do not, and you don't seem to be able to understand why.
Proof: instead of addressing the real reasons, you give 4 arguments that completely miss-state roleplayers' objections.
Let's deal with them:
Quote from: jhkim;626477On the Story Games forum, there currently tends to be a broader definition of "story game" that includes Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: The Masquerade, or other RPGs that talk about story and/or genre emulation.
This is more proof that narrativists simply do not understand roleplayers. (Which tends to support Pundit's position.)
Narrative mechanics have nothing to do with genre emulation. You can roleplay a spy story or high fantasy or the Cthulhu mythos, or you can sim in those genres. Both are possible, and have nothing to do with genre.
Quote from: jhkim;626477A large fraction of traditional RPG players regularly drop out of character, even for in-game decisions.
Which has nothing to do with them suddenly becoming a co-GM or a game designer.
Quote from: jhkim;626477There is a difference between dropping out of character by preference as opposed to dropping out of character based on the rules.
Neither of which have anything to do with the difference between roleplaying mechanics and narrative mechanics.
Quote from: jhkim;626477There is a smooth spectrum of games with fewer and more meta-game mechanics
As I've said before, repeatedly, not all metagame mechanics are narrative in nature, and RPG's can have metagame mechanics.
Quote from: jhkim;626477Arguing for separateness is pointless to reducing the influence, because even if something is accepted as a different hobby, it doesn't prevent there being cross-over and cross-influence.
Yet if we could somehow explain to you narrativists why narrative control for players is disruptive for our games, maybe you could at last see the distinction and stop trying to claim that RPG's like
Torg (a lot of metagame mechanics) and
CoC are storygames (a very silly claim) and storygames are RPG's.
Stop selling us chocolate cake and claiming it's a Twinkie. Both may be baked desserts, but they are not wholly identical.
("What if there were a chocolate Twinkie? Doesn't that prove that Twinkies and chocolate cakes are the same?" No.)
Double post
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;626599Yet if we could somehow explain to you narrativists why narrative control for players is disruptive for our games, maybe you could at last see the distinction and stop trying to claim that RPG's like Torg (a lot of metagame mechanics) and CoC are storygames (a very silly claim) and storygames are RPG's.
Stop selling us chocolate cake and claiming it's a Twinkie. Both may be baked desserts, but they are not wholly identical.
OK, I'm getting pretty short-tempered, but I'll try to explain this again.
Just because I say "World of Warcraft is an RPG" and I also say that "Dungeons & Dragons is an RPG" does not mean that I think the WoW and D&D are identical. The current case is that I say, "World of Warcraft is an RPG" - and you're attacking me - saying that I am a complete moron trying to convince you that World of Warcraft is played around a table with a game-master and character sheets. That is not true. When I say that World of Warcraft is an RPG, I mean that it is a different kind of RPG from D&D.
Likewise, when I say "Call of Cthulhu" is a story game - that does not mean that I think that Call of Cthulhu is identical in all ways to Apocalypse World. It means that I think the term "story game" is wide enough to encompass them both. From the Story Games website FAQ:
QuoteWhat is a Story Game?
Story Games... is the name of this website/forum, dedicated to the discussion of playing Role-Playing Games.
A Story Game... is another word for A Role-Playing Game. Defined as "A game where you play a role". This covers a lot, A LOT, of ground.
Most of the games we discuss are tabletop roleplaying games, much more than live action roleplaying, or computer/console gaming (not the focus of the site).
While all role-playing games are kosher to talk about here at Story Games, you'll probably see a lot of discussion focused towards smaller press games, or "dirty hippie games", like roleplaying games that focus more on relationships, or story-building, or on "our story" over "my character".
You will note that the FAQ specifically says that there *is* a distinction between "dirty hippy games" and some other RPGs. However, the term "story games" is broad enough to cover them both.
Six years ago as the website was starting up, this FAQ was different. The author and site maintainer Andy defined "story games" as only what he calls "dirty hippy games". However, after a number of arguments trying to define what was or wasn't a "story game", we found that the arguments were pointless for exactly the reasons I said. We accept that there are differences, but we don't try to draw a line in the sand between two sides because it is pointless.
I really wish we would just get back to talking about games. This argument is getting old as fuck and is popping up on multiple threads. At this point does anyone seriously not know where other posters stand on this issue?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;626730This argument is getting old as fuck and is popping up on multiple threads.
I happen to agree, which is why I dropped out a few days ago. After this post, I think I'm going to drop out again.
Quote from: jhkim;626612OK, I'm getting pretty short-tempered,
I'm genuinely sorry about that. I'm trying to phrase things so they aren't antagonistic. In fact, several times I simply haven't made a point, because I can't think of a non-offensive way to say something. I don't know what to do about it.
I'm not angry at you, I don't think you're a bad man, I don't think you're trying to destroy RPG's. I just disagree with you.
You seem like a sincere, intelligent, educated, and intellectually honest guy. FWIW.
Quote from: jhkim;626612When I say that World of Warcraft is an RPG, I mean that it is a different kind of RPG from D&D.
Your position is that making a distinction between storygames and RPG's is meaningless.
My point is that any definition which is meant to describe TTRPG's, but which also includes Fiasco, 3.0, and WoW is equally meaningless.
CRPG's are a different medium entirely. They have virtually nothing in common with TTRPG's, save for levels, XP, and powers. I know, I've played a lot of them, especially on consoles.
The distinction, in that case, is important. It says a lot about the games in question.
Quote from: jhkim;626612Likewise, when I say "Call of Cthulhu" is a story game - that does not mean that I think that Call of Cthulhu is identical in all ways to Apocalypse World. It means that I think the term "story game" is wide enough to encompass them both.
Then it's a meaningless definition, a definition that focuses on ephemeral characteristics and ignores the central, critical facet: the difference between players-as-game-designers and players-as-players. (The difference between simming and roleplaying.)
Quote from: jhkim;626612However, after a number of arguments trying to define what was or wasn't a "story game", we found that the arguments were pointless for exactly the reasons I said.
This is one of those things I shouldn't say, because I know it will make you angry. My apologies, but I'm going to say it anyway:
Storygamers have, in thread after thread, rebelled against the very notion of definitions in this area, proffered vague and overly-broad definitions of "telling a story", and shown little recognition of the crucial difference between roleplaying and simming.
That a large group of such people can't craft an exact, 100% perfect definition of where TTRPG's and storygames differ doesn't surprise. Judging by their statements, most don't want such a definition, most think it's unnecessary, in fact most don't think there is any difference at all between the two, so such a definition is (to them) utterly impossible.
Of course they didn't come up with one, because it's anathema to them. It's like asking Dracula to sunbathe. He'll never try it, and if he did he'd never get a tan.
For my part, I stick with the definitions of a narrative mechanic I offerred in one of the other threads, and the definition of narrative RPG's I offerred there as well. It isn't perfect, but it works well enough.
EDIT: I'm not saying this contemptuously. I'm a bad person to, for example, define the exact differences between OD&D, B/X, BECMI, and RC. It requires knowledge I do not have, and don't really care to acquire. I'd be bad at defining anything sports-related, chess-related, Bieber-related, or WoW-related.
Want to talk about the minutia of
Torg? I'm one of the two or three best people in the world for that. (Not a lie.) But that other stuff is outside my wheelhouse. And, based solely on the sincere statements made by storygamers over the past month or so, creating such a definition is outside their wheelhouse.
(Right. That's it. Anyone else really interested in my opinion — not that there is anyone — can take it to PM.)
Quote from: jhkim;626612From the Story Games website FAQ:
That definition is useless. All he's trying to claim there is that ALL RPGs are actually "Storygames". that means that either RPG or Storygame would be an utterly useless term.
If "Storygame" didn't mean something DIFFERENT from RPG, why use it in the first place? Even if it was because you thought it was a better term for the thing in question, that's still claiming a difference, its still suggesting there's something fundamentally different you want to REPLACE with your new terminology.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;626740That a large group of such people can't craft an exact, 100% perfect definition of where TTRPG's and storygames differ doesn't surprise. Judging by their statements, most don't want such a definition, most think it's unnecessary, in fact most don't think there is any difference at all between the two, so such a definition is (to them) utterly impossible.
More than that, they're afraid of it.
RPGPundit