Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623976EDIT: Right, let's clarify.

The purpose of a narrative mechanic is to implement the narrative stance. Not all metagame mechanics are narrative, but all narrative mechanics are metagame. The mechanic implements narrating as an author would, not playing in character.

As a player, narrating as an author is not roleplaying. Period.

The purpose of a narrative game system, a system mostly or entirely of such mechanics, is the same. Therefore, that system doesn't implement or intend playing in character.

Can people RP in narrative systems? Sure. As they can in Risk or other board games. But that's not what the game is about and, when describing and defining mechanics, is useless.

Can people "narrate" as a player in a traditional RPG? Sure, it's called "3rd person" description. The critical point is, they are limited. They can't edit the world freely, by definition. The GM has final say.

They are narrating in a roleplaying environment. More power to them, but that doesn't make the RPG or the mechanics thereof a narrative system.

By intent and design, you don't roleplay in a narrative system and you don't tell stories in an RPG.

That's what I meant, and I stand by it.

This is where the vagueness of the whole 'story games' thing is a barrier to communication. You're talking in generalities, and those generalities don't match my experiences with such games at all. Including the storygame that I wrote and play regularly (played it last night, in fact).

Which specific games do you think work as you describe above?

Earlier in the thread I posted an example of how these games work at the table.

Quote from: SovietHere's a typical D&D situation. My elven ranger walks into town. The GM describes how two thugs appear from an alleyway and then speaks in character to threaten me with harm. I speak in character to give them the brush off and then describe some cool trick shot I'm going to try with my bow. We roll initiative, then trade attack rolls and damage rolls with the GM describing what happens as we go.

Here's how the same situation plays out in HeroQuest. My elven ranger walks into town. The GM describes how two thugs appear from an alleyway and then speaks in character to threaten me with harm. I speak in character to give them the brush off and then describe some cool trick shot I'm going to try with my bow. We talk about what the stakes of success and failure might look like. We roll against our chosen abilities and the GM describes what happens as we go.

Seriously, the difference between storygame RPGs and non-storygame RPGs is not as big as you seem to imagine.

Quote from: soviet;624080Earlier in the thread I posted an example of how these games work at the table.

I have no doubt that's the way you play. You're roleplaying within the narrative mechanical context. Which is, I noted, possible.

You can carry all sorts of habits and assumptions into games, playing in styles the rules themselves don't support. 3e, for example, doesn't implement the same dungeon crawling rules as OD&D, yet you can run a classic dungeon crawl campaign with them.

One critical question is: does the player have the right to "narrate" the world, creating and detailing new NPC's as he sees fit, without regards to the GM's say-so? Even if he doesn't exercise that authority, the fact it exists in the mechanics at all is narrativistic in the extreme. People can roleplay around it, but the rule is what it is.


Again, your play style is as described. But the rules are what they are, no matter what style you're using.

Quote from: soviet;624080Seriously, the difference between storygame RPGs and non-storygame RPGs is not as big as you seem to imagine.

But there is a distinction, which is my point. The mechanics are not identical.

(Also note: I'm not saying your game is bad, your playstyle is bad, or that you're a bad person. I'm not positing that you're part of a conspiracy to destroy the hobby from within. I don't believe that; I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out technical differences in mechanics. That's all.)

Soviet, this is something I was referring two with JKim, but small perceived difference can be huge actual difference.

Let's say you're crossing a street and a car narrowly misses you.  To someone observing there would be very little difference in what they saw between...
1. a random event, an accident narrowly avoided.
2. The driver, a guy you embarrassed in a bar 10 minutes ago, trying to kill you with his car and missing.

To you two however, BIG fucking difference.

That paragraph about the ranger has two things happening almost exactly the same way.  However, you add in HQ that small sentence about discussing stakes and outcomes before resolution.

Since what we are experiencing is internal, I don't think you and I are really talking about the same experience when we say immerse or roleplay.  Why do I think that?  Because it's obvious that you don't realize that the "setting stakes and outcomes" section is, to me a STAGGERINGLY LARGE difference.  Large enough to be a completely different mental process.  Like the difference between being simply mistaken and actually lying.  No one but me can tell the difference, but two wildly different thought processes.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083I have no doubt that's the way you play. You're roleplaying within the narrative mechanical context. Which is, I noted, possible.

One critical question is: does the player have the right to "narrate" the world, creating and detailing new NPC's as he sees fit, without regards to the GM's say-so? Even if he doesn't exercise that authority, the fact it exists in the mechanics at all is narrativistic in the extreme. People can roleplay around it, but the rule is what it is.

In HeroQuest players can't make up NPCs. In Other Worlds you can, if you spend some points, but the GM does have some veto/modification power. To some extent it's a trust system, like all RPGs. 'I know a guy who lives in the next village that might be able to help us out if we persuade him' is different from 'A guy springs up from out of nowhere, heals all of our injuries, and gives us a thousand GPs'.

But note again that games like Vampire have player-generated contacts and allies.
And even where these things aren't mechanically supported, lots of traditional RPGs encourage players to write detailed backstories that contain lists of friends and enemies, as well as allowing similar additions in play with the permission of the GM. Are you really saying that if you were running AD&D or RuneQuest and a player said to you 'Hey, GM, I think my brother might live in this town, maybe I could bump into him or something' you would just say 'Fuck off, I'm the GM'?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083You can carry all sorts of habits and assumptions into games, playing in styles the rules themselves don't support. 3e, for example, doesn't implement the same dungeon crawling rules as OD&D, yet you can run a classic dungeon crawl campaign with them.

Again, your play style is as described. But the rules are what they are, no matter what style you're using.

Well, hang on, my playstyle is the playstyle indicated in the text. I haven't approached storygames in some non-storygame way, this is how they actually run at the table. In fact the storygame I normally play is one I wrote, so I'd like to think I have an insight into the author's intentions .

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083But there is a distinction, which is my point. The mechanics are not identical.

Well I agree that there is a distinction. Otherwise why even have different games at all? What I don't agree with is the idea that this difference is so vast that it makes storygames non-RPGs. Is the difference between HeroQuest and Vampire really bigger than the difference between Ghostbusters and D&D 4e, for example? How are Phoenix Command, FATAL, Feng Shui, and TWERPS all in the same hobby but Burning Wheel is something else entirely?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624083(Also note: I'm not saying your game is bad, your playstyle is bad, or that you're a bad person. I'm not positing that you're part of a conspiracy. I don't believe that; I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out technical differences in mechanics. That's all.)

Cool, thanks for that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624085That paragraph about the ranger has two things happening almost exactly the same way.  However, you add in HQ that small sentence about discussing stakes and outcomes before resolution.

Since what we are experiencing is internal, I don't think you and I are really talking about the same experience when we say immerse or roleplay.  Why do I think that?  Because it's obvious that you don't realize that the "setting stakes and outcomes" section is, to me a STAGGERINGLY LARGE difference.  Large enough to be a completely different mental process.  Like the difference between being simply mistaken and actually lying.  No one but me can tell the difference, but two wildly different thought processes.

I agree with everything you say, and that even a small amount of stakes setting would be a huge deal to someone roleplaying from a very heavy in-character/immersionist point of view.

But I don't think that this is the only way to roleplay, or even the most common way to roleplay. I play storygames but I also play other RPGs, and I've been in the hobby since 1991. I've played a bunch of games and with a bunch of groups. I think that when most people play they do so from the primary perspective of their character but also with an eye on other, external factors. A touch of metagaming, in other words. Sometimes this is 'wow, that'll make for a good story'. Sometimes it's 'wow, that'll be an exciting thing to do'. Sometimes it's 'I need to go home soon, let's wrap this up'. Sometimes it's 'as per the rules on facing, I need to flank him when I fire off my death touch spell to make sure it hits'. Sometimes it's just 'I'm better at bluff than diplomacy, I'll try to trick them instead'.

This is how IME storygames work. The primary mode of play is first person perspective character driven, but occasionally people step out of that for a moment to think about what might happen if they fail a particular roll. But I don't see this as being any different from stepping out of first person POV to think about game mechanics, or battle tactics. People can have two things going on in their head at the same time. 'All immersion all the time' is one way to play RPGs but not I think the only way.

Quote from: Lynn;624014That's a definition of storytelling, not story games.

But the point is that a form of storytelling can happen in RPGs.

Is it the sole point of RPGs? No. Do you have to do it in an RPG? No. Can you do it and get good results in an RPG? Unless many people are lying to me, yes.

Soviet, you're right in that some people don't do "all immersion all the time".  In fact, I'll go you one better and say even the people who vastly prefer "all immersion all the time" hardly ever get there.

But here's the thing...

In a traditional RPG, with standard simulationist rules, who decides how I am thinking?  Who decides whether I make any given choice from an IC, tactical metagame, narrative metagame, or even purely social perspective?

Me.

In a game where some rules are designed to force choice from a OOC tactical metagame perspective (the dreaded 4e dissociation), or the rules are designed to force choice from an OOC narrative metagame perspective, who is deciding how I have to make that choice?

Not me.  The designer.  

Remember "System Matters".  
If the rules allow for an open decision structure that supports multiple play styles, it doesn't mechanically enforce any particular one of them, but it allows all of them.
If, however, the rules mechanically support and enforce a particular decision structure, it can end up preventing or inhibiting the other play styles.

An open game structure, I can get my serious roleplay on, or I can not, depending.
A closed or more limited game structure, I may not be able to get IC, especially when the core mechanic includes something like "stakes negotiation" or "succeed with complications" which are inherently metagame in form.

It's never been about always doing it one way, it's about being able to use the core structures of the game to do it that way at all.

Soviet, you're right in that some people don't do "all immersion all the time".  In fact, I'll go you one better and say even the people who vastly prefer "all immersion all the time" hardly ever get here.

But here's the thing...

In a traditional RPG, with standard simulationist rules, who decides how I am thinking?  Who decides whether I make any given choice from an IC, tactical metagame, narrative metagame, or even purely social perspective?

Me.

In a game where some rules are designed to force choice from a OOC tactical metagame perspective (the dreaded 4e dissociation), or the rules are designed to force choice from an OOC narrative metagame perspective, who is deciding how I have to make that choice?

Not me.  The designer.  

Remember "System Matters".  
If the rules allow for an open decision structure that supports multiple play styles, it doesn't mechanically enforce any particular one of them, but it allows all of them.
If, however, the rules mechanically support and enforce a particular decision structure, it can end up preventing or inhibiting the other play styles.

An open game structure, I can get my serious roleplay on, or I can not, depending.
A closed or more limited game structure, I may not be able to get IC, especially when the core mechanic includes something like "stakes negotiation" or "succeed with complications" which are inherently metagame in form.

It's never been about always doing it one way, it's about being able to use the core structures of the game to do it that way at all or do it whenever I feel like.

Quote from: Warthur;624089But the point is that a form of storytelling can happen in RPGs.

Is it the sole point of RPGs? No. Do you have to do it in an RPG? No. Can you do it and get good results in an RPG? Unless many people are lying to me, yes.

Others say the point is that RPGs can have story-like and storytelling-like elements in them, but they aren't stories, and playing an rpg isn't storytelling.

Being similar to something doesn't mean it is the same thing. Just like my example of a tanuki not being a raccoon or a dog - a tanuki is a tanuki. People refer to them as a raccoon dog because that refers to things that share similaries that people already know.

A transvestite may look and act like a woman but that doesn't mean they have the same biology.

Quote from: Lynn;624135Being similar to something doesn't mean it is the same thing.

Correct. And, calling a dog a duck doesn't make it so. It just makes you wrong.

Saying that roleplaying is "telling a story" is factually incorrect. It's just wrong.

Wrong medium. Wrong endeavor.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624119Soviet, you're right in that some people don't do "all immersion all the time".  In fact, I'll go you one better and say even the people who vastly prefer "all immersion all the time" hardly ever get there.

But here's the thing...

In a traditional RPG, with standard simulationist rules, who decides how I am thinking?  Who decides whether I make any given choice from an IC, tactical metagame, narrative metagame, or even purely social perspective?

Me.

In a game where some rules are designed to force choice from a OOC tactical metagame perspective (the dreaded 4e dissociation), or the rules are designed to force choice from an OOC narrative metagame perspective, who is deciding how I have to make that choice?

Not me.  The designer.  

Remember "System Matters".  
If the rules allow for an open decision structure that supports multiple play styles, it doesn't mechanically enforce any particular one of them, but it allows all of them.
If, however, the rules mechanically support and enforce a particular decision structure, it can end up preventing or inhibiting the other play styles.

An open game structure, I can get my serious roleplay on, or I can not, depending.
A closed or more limited game structure, I may not be able to get IC, especially when the core mechanic includes something like "stakes negotiation" or "succeed with complications" which are inherently metagame in form.

It's never been about always doing it one way, it's about being able to use the core structures of the game to do it that way at all.

I'm not sure you do decide how you are thinking to the extent that you say. Or at least, I don't think that most people do. It's a pretty herculean feat of immersion or whatever to totally ignore the 300 page rulebook in front of you and make your decisions entirely from an in-character, rules-agnostic point of view. All those rules and procedures can't help but make a difference. And again, I want to reiterate that it's perfectly possible (and common) to have two separate thought processes in your brain at the same time. Thinking about system-based tactics doesn't mean you aren't also thinking about what your character wants to do.

It's interesting that you bring up 4e and dissociation because I play and enjoy 4e (albeit it's not my favourite edition). I don't find that the combat system drives me out of an in-character perspective any more or less than other combat systems do. I can see why it would have that effect for other people, but for me it doesn't. Maybe my brain is more easily able to rationalise the decision to use Come and Get It or trip an ooze in an in-character way, but for me personally those things are not jarring. Just like some people can think about game tactics without it breaking them out of a primarily IC POV, I can think about failure stakes or power descriptions and still keep roleplaying.

For someone who can't do that, or doesn't want to, those things are jarring as fuck. But  for some of us they're not. I don't reject your experiences but I don't share them either, so I don't think they should be treated as an objective measure of whether something is or isn't an RPG. If I can roleplay happily in HeroQuest but you can't, is it really correct to say that HQ isn't an RPG?

Quote from: soviet;624086Cool, thanks for that.

You're welcome. Given the hostility towards storygames (or story-ish games) on this site, a little clarity was needed as to where I stood.

When I've read your posts in the past you've come across as a level headed, patient guy, and despite our disagreements nothing you've said has contradicted that impression. You deserve some respect for that.

Quote from: soviet;624086In HeroQuest players can't make up NPCs.

That's fine. The NPC thing is just one specific example of a narrative or simming mechanic.

The larger issue is: who controls the world outside the PC's? The more control players have of the world outside themselves, and the more often they can exercise that control, the more narrative the game mechanics are.

Like I said, Hero Quest could very well be a simming-heavy RPG. (I could have been wrong, in other words.) It doesn't really matter if that's the case.

I'm not interested in binning games into story/not story. I'm more interested in examining the RPG medium from a technical standpoint. And that has to begin by acknowledging what it is and isn't.

And roleplaying (for the player) doesn't involve narrative control of the world outside the character, and vice versa.

Quote from: soviet;624086but the GM does have some veto/modification power.

That's the critical difference I'm using for Infinity. The GM has final say, they can exercise that authority however they like. If they want the player to be able to create whole NPC's, they can.

Quote from: soviet;624086And even where these things aren't mechanically supported, lots of traditional RPGs encourage players to write detailed backstories that contain lists of friends and enemies,

Character creation is a separate issue, because you're not playing in character, you're creating the character. (In general, where allowed by state laws, see our website for details. Erections lasting longer than 4 hours...)

Quote from: soviet;624086Are you really saying that if you were running AD&D or RuneQuest and a player said to you 'Hey, GM, I think my brother might live in this town, maybe I could bump into him or something' you would just say 'Fuck off, I'm the GM'?

"Fuck off?" No. "Not this session." Maybe. It depends on what's going on.

You got to realize, my main game is Torg. And Torg has a Drama Deck, a wholly metagame mechanic. And in that deck is the Connection card, which players can play. It allows them to have a contact in the area.

And I'm cool with that. Because it doesn't involve them editing the reality of the world. The GM has the final say on if it can happen for that character, and if so what the NPC is.

(They can exercise that authority however they see fit, up to and including allowing the player to detail the NPC. However, creating that NPC isn't roleplaying, for the same reason that creating a PC isn't.)

Quote from: soviet;624086What I don't agree with is the idea that this difference is so vast that it makes storygames non-RPGs.

Narrating the world, as a player, is different from roleplaying. (Conceded by just about everyone in this thread.) A narrative mechanic is different from a roleplaying mechanic. (Again, just about everyone concedes that.)

A system made entirely out of narrative mechanics, without any roleplaying mechanics, isn't a roleplaying system; the system doesn't support roleplaying.

This is an ineluctable deduction from the adduced principles. Some games are not roleplaying games. And those games can include wholly narrative games.

QED.

This holds even if people can roleplay during the game, the  system is what it is. That you can roleplay while playing it, doesn't make the system an RPG system.

(Again, not interested in binning specific games. Other than AW, because it was amusing.)

Quote from: Phillip;623733At any moment, Benoist is likely to break out funky dice

Love those dice. Greatest innovation in dicepool design since Ghostbusters.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624159Love those dice. Greatest innovation in dicepool design since Ghostbusters.

What are they from?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624160What are they from?

Warhammer 3e.