Quote from: Blackhand;624874It's a bad game where the GM isn't a neutral and impartial non-participant referee.

Otherwise, you are probably playing a story game where the GM just wants his players to "have fun" and not adjudicate and REFEREE the scenario like it's supposed to be run.

[...]

Of course, if you're just making shit up on the fly you're storygaming anyway.  Meaning if you didn't write a scenario with specific encounters and specific reactions, there's nothing to referee and you're just stroking your player's junk.  Bringing the awesome, as it were.

I'm sorry, I understand that you are differentiating two play styles here, but the that other one does not conform the Storygamers' way of looking at things. As a Storygamer, I will exlain, if you like. (Otherwise skip the rest of this post.)


You are correct that there is a fundamental difference in the way the OSR and Storygamers perceive the GM role. There probably are many other ways to look at is, as well. Please understand that I'm lumping most of the regulars of this message board into the OSR category. That might not do you all justice, either. If that is so, please explain it to me, I will gladly learn.

The difference between these two schools of thought is in the narrative of playing group formation: How does it happen that there is a group of people playing an RPG? [1]

The OSR narrative is like that: There is a person, who aspires to be a GM. He or she chooses a set of rules, makes modifications to his or her liking, makes up an imaginary world, then invites players to play in it.

The Storygamers tell the story like that: There is bunch of people, aspiring to play an RPG. The negotiate a set rules, often employing some prepackaged game, then play.


The GM doesn't factor into it. If the game has a GM, the GM is part of the rules. The rules must include the concept: "There shall be a GM." Furthermore, the rules - as agreed upon by the group - must explain what exactly that means for the particular game.

Therefore the role of the GM can differ by a large degree between games (And it often does.) So, to Storygamers, it's quite useless to talk about GMs at all, without explaining what game the discussion applies to.

Storygamers would much rather discuss individual actions and techniques (that's their word) that GMs often employ. Storygamers would ask: "How can I frame engaging scenes?", "How can I create interesting supporting characters?", "How can I create a reward mechanic for particular behaviours?" etc. These questions are then attributed not to the GMs, but to players in general. Storygamers would ask: "Assume there is a game, where I have to do this. How would I do it?"

Performing a role labeled "GM" doesn't figure into the discourse, even if many typical storygames have a role resembling a traditional GM.


Your confusion, may arise from merging two rather distinct schools of play. Storygamers and - what I call - Storytellers, mostly found with 90s style games like White Wolf's.

Typical storygames are Primetime Adventures, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard.

Storygaming - to tackle another misconception - doesn't concern itself with quality narrative. Storygamers wouldn't ask: "How can I make a good story?" Storygamers ask: "How can we as a group create a nice play?"

Yeah, Storygamers use play as a noun. It encompasses both the resulting fiction, as well as the actions of the players and the game-y mechanics creating the fiction. Storygamers are more interested in the process of playing than in the fictional content.

Asking "What is a good story?", "What is a good adventure?", "How can I create suspense?", that is more a Storytellers' thing. Storytellers are very interested in the fictional content, not so much in the procedures of play.

Storytellers might in theory use a big book of rules, then choose not to employ them. Storygamers use little books, then usually employ all of it. (Or state clear house rules as alternatives.) Storygamers will usually roll dice and stick to the results. Unless, of course, the game uses cards or beads or whatever. (We are open minded in that regard.) Storytellers on the other hand might prefer to "just play it".

Fate, while often called a storygame, is not a typical storygame. It's too big, has too many rules. Storygames also usually do not feature precreated background and setting. Instead the setting is meant to be created as group process. There are quite a few Storygamers who enjoy D&D 4e, Storytellers usually don't. Your typical Storygamer would rather play D&D 4e rules-as-written, than Vampire: The Masquerade.


So, please, make that difference. Storygamers are not Storyteller, or whatever you might like to call them.


[1] Note that I'm using a very broad definition of RPG here, one that encompasses typical Storygames.

I admit I don't relate well, or fully understand what storygame style is all about.

When I am a player in an rpg, all I really do is play the character, and enjoy the events that unfold.

When I gm an rpg, I am essentially the director in an improv play. The characters do whatever they please, and I adjudicate the setting. I also provide the setting, focused generally on what the players find interesting.


I have never in 30+ years of gming ever thought about 'How do I frame a scene"  

But I admit, I don't get it

1of3: you're right that there's a lot of confusion here about story games. But you go on to compare story games and "OSR games" in terms that ignore a lot of what makes a story game a story game. There's also a fair amount of plain misrepresentation based, I'm guessing, on your favorite type of SG. E.g. excluding Spirit of the Century (a FATE game) and not accounting for Burning Empires, The Mountain Witch, The Shab-al Hiri Roach, Dogs in the Vineyard, Trollbabe, Lady Blackbird, The Shadow of Yesterday, and other games that either contain prepackaged setting or have fairly thick rules.

But the bigger problem is you're comparing games in a manner similar to comparing cars and airplanes, and saying "cars have four wheels, airplanes three; cars can be any color, airplanes are usually white."

The fact is that story games aren't just procedure; they are distinguished by the type of procedure and the type of role GMs fill. They aren't just collaborative at the outset; any RPG can be played following discussion of the system, setting, and who will GM, but that won't make it a story game.

Story games typically use some combination of the following:

Strong scene-framing
Flags
Bangs
Stakes
Conflict Resolution
Strong Author Stance, Director Stance
Mechanics which require not merely the translation of abstraction into game-narrative, but which are impossible to translate into in-character decision-making (often called "dissociated")
No-myth GMing
Constrained or directed rules for GMs which, to some players, invites predictability based on the rules of the game rather than the logic of the setting.

Thank you, i liked that distinction between Storygaming, OSR and Storytelling games.

I find myself oddly inbetween ....

I mean, i concider a GM to be a neccessity, I like the rules simple - but several extras may be included, but only used if a character uses them.

I can play D&D if need be ... but i rather don't, and i probably won't DM it ...

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;6258191of3: you're right that there's a lot of confusion here about story games. But you go on to compare story games and "OSR games" in terms that ignore a lot of what makes a story game a story game. There's also a fair amount of plain misrepresentation based, I'm guessing, on your favorite type of SG. E.g. excluding Spirit of the Century (a FATE game) and not accounting for Burning Empires, The Mountain Witch, The Shab-al Hiri Roach, Dogs in the Vineyard, Trollbabe, Lady Blackbird, The Shadow of Yesterday, and other games that either contain prepackaged setting or have fairly thick rules.

I like playing FATE, Dresden Files in particular. I had lots of fun DitV, Trollbabe, TSoY and I'm eager to try Blackbird and the Roach. MTW failed the one time we tried it, but that was probably due to bad preparation and generel fatigue.

While the games you mention do contain setting and background, that is much different from perusing Agone, Werewolf: The Apokalypse, Nobilis or 7th Sea, which I consider typical storytelling games.

These latter games try to impress with a new and intricate kind of setting. Storygames usually don't. The settings are prototypical and rather slim. We don't learn much about the place the Lady Blackbird has come from. Players are meant to expand on that, not use preexisting material. Blackbird is not about an airship either, it's about a refugee on a ship. We can easily make it a sailing ship or a space ship, as long as it remains ship like.

In the same way, TMW could take place in Thessaly with heroes striving to reach the with Erichto. Also people hack DitV to play it with other scenarios where a group of justices meets isolated conclaves. Personally, I've used it for Mage: The Ascension.

You cannot in the same way, take the werewolfitude out of Werewolf, making it a game about other monsters. All the details about Sidestepping, the Umbra, the different Tribes etc. would become meaningless.

Storytelling games are about a background that can harbor PCs. Storygames are about a certain constellation of protagonists, with the background as a backdrop. It can be expanded and changed.

QuoteThe fact is that story games aren't just procedure; they are distinguished by the type of procedure and the type of role GMs fill. They aren't just collaborative at the outset; any RPG can be played following discussion of the system, setting, and who will GM, but that won't make it a story game.

I guess, I was focussing less on storygames but on how Storygamers perceive RPGs in general. I can play most RPGs in a Storygame-y kind of way, just like I can use most other play styles with "wrong" games.

You are focussing on the products called storygames, not the way that Storygamers approach such products. Your approach is totally fine and worthwile, as well.

For typical elements in storygames I'd add:

- Dice being used as markers
- Comprehensive play sheets, expanding upon character sheets
- Ritual discourse

Quote from: 1of3;625801The OSR narrative is like that: There is a person, who aspires to be a GM. He or she chooses a set of rules, makes modifications to his or her liking, makes up an imaginary world, then invites players to play in it.

The GM doesn't factor into it. If the game has a GM, the GM is part of the rules. The rules must include the concept: "There shall be a GM." Furthermore, the rules - as agreed upon by the group - must explain what exactly that means for the particular game.

Therefore the role of the GM can differ by a large degree between games (And it often does.) So, to Storygamers, it's quite useless to talk about GMs at all, without explaining what game the discussion applies to.

First of all thanks for splitting this off into its own thread as it wouldn't have been productive in the other one.

You've made some fairly wide ranging mistakes in your discourse above. I've bolded these, the first error is that what usually happens is someone picks up some rules, shows them to everyone else and the group agrees to give it a go. Also typically houserules are agreed upon by the group. The person who picks up the book may or may not end up GMing the game. The GM rarely creates an entire world from scratch, at least in my experience, but in any case you're phrasing it as an absolute which it isn't.

The GM is not part of the rules; the rules are a seperate element to the GM. The rules may stipulate the need for a GM, but if you're saying that makes the GM part of the rules, you may as well say the players are part of the rules, and the setting is part of the rules, everything is part of the rules. It's a nonsensical statement.

Once you understand that, you can begin to understand that there are certain commonalities in the role of GM regardless of game. I've discussed these in more detail in "the role of the GM" thread.

Quote from: 1of3;625835While the games you mention do contain setting and background, that is much different from perusing Agone, Werewolf: The Apokalypse, Nobilis or 7th Sea, which I consider typical storytelling games.[...]

Yes, but I thought you were contrasting story-games with "OSR games." OSR games are generally understood to mean early versions of D&D and variants off of those. It's true there are published settings for those games, but there's generally no single setting-per-game (Empire of the Petal Throne is a notable exception), and it's fairly typical for the games to use an original setting devised by the GM. So, use of a detailed setting isn't a major distinguishing point.

In my personal opinion, it isn't even a major distinguishing point between story-games and non-D&D "traditional games" which are outside the storytelling genre. Runequest, Flashing Blades, Traveller, Talislanta, Harn--all have fairly detailed or well-defined settings. It's possible to play them in a "storytelling" style, and it's possible to play them in a "non-storytelling" style, such as in "sandbox" fashion. The point I wish to make is that "story-game" doesn't comprise all of the "non-storytelling" styles or games. One can distinguish "story-games" using the characteristics I mentioned above.

[EDIT: Somehow I got it in my head that the OP mentioned detailed published setting as a property of OSR and/or "Storytelling" games. I can't find that now. Maybe I imagined it.]

QuoteI guess, I was focussing less on storygames but on how Storygamers perceive RPGs in general. I can play most RPGs in a Storygame-y kind of way, just like I can use most other play styles with "wrong" games.

From your perspective, perhaps a non-storytelling style would strike you as story-gamey. This is a product of your limited experience. Many people who are used to playing traditional RPGs in a non-storytelling style find storygames to be quite different from what they do.

QuoteYou are focussing on the products called storygames, not the way that Storygamers approach such products. Your approach is totally fine and worthwile, as well.

Thank you so very much.

QuoteFrom your perspective, perhaps a non-storytelling style would strike you as story-gamey. This is a product of your limited experience. Many people who are used to playing traditional RPGs in a non-storytelling style find storygames to be quite different from what they do.

We need to differentiate between three questions, when we analyse subcultures in gamer-dom.

1) How are the games like that the particular group uses?
2) What are they doing while playing?
3) How do they talk about what they are doing?

While #2 might be the most interesting question, we cannot really know that. Apart from first-hand experience we can only read how people talk about their play style on the net. And that's already #3.

Now, when we do this, we get some distinct subcultures and lot's of people who do not fit any of these groups. The groups I perceive are the Storytellers forming in the 90s, the Storygamers forming in the mid 00s, and the OSR forming about 2010, I think.

That doesn't mean that old-school playstyle wasn't around before, but people didn't step up and say: "We are the Old-Schoolers, we play this way."

So when I differentiate Storygamers from OSR people, instead of "traditional gamers", that's because the OSR people are a disctinct group who have vocalized their preferences in a coherent manner.

If I were talking about "storygames vs. traditional games", I would incur the same problem that prompted me to start this very thread: I might put all the people playing differently from me into a single category of "other", namely "traditional games". That's what, I think, fellow user Blackhand did. He then labled that category of "other" as "storygames". Hopefully, I have proved that approach to be faulty.

Of course, there are many things around that are not claimed by any of those three subcultures. Take the claim of "fast and fun", which can be found in Savage World's slogan but also in the 4e DMG. There was lots of discussion about how not talking the guards at the town portal is more "fun".

So we already have a quality standard for play here: Fast and fun. There might also be certain techniques that are usually associated with it. Maybe tactical combat, special rules for mooks, optimisation (?) etc. It might be a distinct style of play after all, but the players enjoying it, have not yet formed a culture. They lack internal discourse and a common designation to the outside world. Something the groups I was talking about before all have.

So, when I focus on these three groups, that's not because of too little experience, but quite simply for methodological reasons.

Quote from: 1of3;625994That's what, I think, fellow user Blackhand did. He then labled that category of "other" as "storygames". Hopefully, I have proved that approach to be faulty.

Maybe it's because I don't play those games, or perhaps because I never visited the Forge, but I'll admit this is my mistake.

I thought it was a catch-all term for that one sort of gaming.

Quote from: Blackhand;626000Maybe it's because I don't play those games, or perhaps because I never visited the Forge, but I'll admit this is my mistake.

I thought it was a catch-all term for that one sort of gaming.

It is and generally anyone would be in the ballpark when encountering the term as you used it. What 1of3 is attempting to do is define find distinctions that don't matter to anyone not directly concerned with those fine distinctions.

It's a bit like everyone understands what you mean when you say Joe is a car nut, but Sam over there wants to point out the Joe likes mustangs and he likes porsches.

It matters to Sam, but generally everyone else is good with 'car nut'.

Quote from: 1of3;625994[stuff]

I think you're getting hung up on me talking about traditional vs. "OSR games." Forget about it. The real point here is: are you able to distinguish storytelling games/gaming and "OSR" games/gaming?

So... you keep on questioning my ability? What ever suits you. I don't feel very "hung up" on you, either. You took in interest in what I wrote, so I tried to make clearer my line of thought. If that diminishes your personal life, I will stop adressing you, immediately.

But you really need to differentiate between the games as products, and game styles as schools of thought. While they are easily correlated, they are not the same.

No, you seemed to be getting sidetracked, and now you're verging on incoherent.

I understand what you mean by games as products and game styles, of course. I get that you don't want story gaming to be associated with "storytelling", but in the process you've decided to characterize "OSR" and also to contrast "storygaming" with "OSR" in a way that utterly misses the point. I suggest that if your experience outside of story games consists of DSA and White Wolf-style storytelling, you refrain from talking about other games and styles.

Well, I for one appreciate that the discourse has gone beyond "STORYGAMES BAD!!!", even if just for a moment.

I'm a jack of all trades.  And I'd like to picture myself as a Bruce Lee of GMs - I don't need to know your style, so much as to know what of yours I can incorporate into my own.