TheRPGSite

Today, a new video.

Jonathan Tweet is one of the best living game designers, or was until Trump Derangement Syndrome took hold.
He also took offense at my saying Over the Edge (maybe his best game ever) wasn't a Storygame, because apparently, somehow, he doesn't know the difference between Storygames and RPGs.

And to top it all off, he lied about me for no good reason.

[video=youtube_share;N5DJFtWaqWM]https://youtu.be/N5DJFtWaqWM[/youtube]

Something like 30 "uhs" in 5 minutes. Though as noted before, once you get revved up you do it alot less. Some advice from my speech therapist way back is to A: practice and try to catch yourself uh-ing. and B: when you feel like you are about to instead either pause or take a breath. Then continue on. This helps your oration come across as less indecisive. Which is important when you are trying to get across a point or present your case.

As for Tweet. Sounds like he ascribes to the storygamer party line as quite a few will ascribe storytelling to about anything. Same as some ascribe pretty much "everything on earth" as Role playing. And to some storygame means "everything on earth" or darn close. Or maybee he is trying to court some sort of storygamer market?

You can EDIT out pauses, uhs and whatevers. It's worth the effort.

You need more production value.

I agree with Omega, you uh less when revved up. So go berzerker rage shield chewing before recording.

When you say "not a storygame," you mean it as a compliment. He probably thinks it will hurt his sales.
By the way, saying that storygames aren't a subset of RPGs isn't insupportable but saying that they are isn't insupportable either.
By his standards, GURPS is a storygame.

l have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I had Obama Derangement Syndrome, I had Bush Derangement Syndrome. Before that, I was usually just deranged.

I'd have to be actually earning serious money at this to bother with editing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052433I'd have to be actually earning serious money at this to bother with editing.

If you can be bothered to put up a video you want people to listen to you. If they aren't listening you're not making your point to anyone but yourself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052433I'd have to be actually earning serious money at this to bother with editing.

And therein lies the paradox; to get enough eyeballs to earn serious money you first need to put in the effort to make a polished finished product.

There are more YouTubers with opinions out there who actually take the time to edit than there are hours in the day to watch their content. No one is going to stick around to watch a rant by someone who doesn't care enough about his opinion to bother editing the piece when there are three others who actually put a modicum of effort into making their piece more viewer friendly.

Even just going through and cutting the "uh"s would make a world of difference. Even guys who put their face on camera do it (you can see it in a lot of YouTube videos actually... as long as they're positioned in basically the same position on screen it's barely noticeable. It's even less noticeable if you're not on screen yourself.

Take this free advice for what it's worth, but if you aren't going to bother editing the videos, you should stick to your blogging because you'll never get enough of a following to be profitable otherwise.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052433I'd have to be actually earning serious money at this to bother with editing.

I get there are only so many hours in the day.  At the same time, if you make a 15 minute video where the only thing we see is your book, you made a 15 minute commercial for your book.

Quote from: Simon W;1052449If you can be bothered to put up a video you want people to listen to you. If they aren't listening you're not making your point to anyone but yourself.

1. My channel is doing pretty well and growing steadily for a niche talk channel.

2. Have none of you people seen Diversity & Comics? He's got exactly the same production values as I do, and he's HUGE.

Quote from: Chris24601;1052472And therein lies the paradox; to get enough eyeballs to earn serious money you first need to put in the effort to make a polished finished product.

There are more YouTubers with opinions out there who actually take the time to edit than there are hours in the day to watch their content. No one is going to stick around to watch a rant by someone who doesn't care enough about his opinion to bother editing the piece when there are three others who actually put a modicum of effort into making their piece more viewer friendly.

Even just going through and cutting the "uh"s would make a world of difference. Even guys who put their face on camera do it (you can see it in a lot of YouTube videos actually... as long as they're positioned in basically the same position on screen it's barely noticeable. It's even less noticeable if you're not on screen yourself.

Take this free advice for what it's worth, but if you aren't going to bother editing the videos, you should stick to your blogging because you'll never get enough of a following to be profitable otherwise.

Again, dude, D&C doesn't show his face, makes videos exactly as I did, and is making fucktons of money through his channel.  I doubt I'll ever reach that level of fame and profit, but I think there's also a shitload of people who use neat production values and get way less views.

Shit, Grim Jim makes more polished videos than me (he's got the skills for it), shows his face, has been at this way longer, and tends to consistently get less views than I do.

Surely the guy who actually wrote the game knows if it's a storygame or not?

Or is this just, "if I like it, it's not a storygame"? This reminds me of that Tangency dude Amado who said, "racism is a system of oppression where whites put themselves above blacks, therefore blacks can't be racist." This really confused people when, without explaining the context, he'd say blacks who had said or done nasty things about or to some racial group weren't racist. He knew why they didn't understand, but didn't explain it because then he could feel more special. That's just being deliberately obtuse.

If you redefine words so they have meanings nobody else accepts then yes, you can argue all sorts of wacky stuff and get into all sorts of pointless arguments, just like a lefty. It's more productive to use words with the meaning as commonly understood, or at the least to use the difference between your understanding of them and everyone else's to have a discussion about the differences and the reasons for them, and thus go deeper into things than people commonly do.

Until then, Over The Edge is a storygame.

Id say NO, a person who wrote a game very well might not know what the hell game it really is. You see this at times in board games and some RPGs.
They might be misinformed at the time of writing, or afterwards. They might also just be making a claim to cash in.

If Tweet says its a story game that unfortunately doesnt mean it is. I am unfamilliar with Over the Edge other than knowing it was an RPG and a CCG. Seemed like the CCG lasted longer than the RPG?

What elements in Over the Edge would have made it a storygame?

I like your videos somewhat pundit but it cracks me up that you call yourself the final boss of internet shitlords.  I mean, I get it, you've got your ego to self inflate and an attempt to garner attention to maintain but dude you're not a pinprick spatter on the wall when it comes to internet bloodsport.  Call me when you get Internet Aristocrat/Mr. Metokur level.  Or even Razorfist if you want to stay focused on things that are (occasionally) gaming related.  You're a mini-boss.  Your the chaingunner or Hellknight of internet shitlords.  DGMR I will give you that you've got a good foundation - conversation of you triggers people at SJW havens like Somethingawful or rpg.net, so it's a good start but...yeah, no.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1052547I like your videos somewhat pundit but it cracks me up that you call yourself the final boss of internet shitlords.

Someone else called him that, intending it as an insult. This is what happened.

Pundit, when your own fanbase is pointing out your production values are shit, then... Your production values are shit. Citing two examples doesn't make a case. Listening to all your "uhs" wastes my time.

Quote from: Iron_Rain;1052870Pundit, when your own fanbase is pointing out your production values are shit, then... Your production values are shit. Citing two examples doesn't make a case. Listening to all your "uhs" wastes my time.

Don't watch them, sniff your own farts instead.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1052525Surely the guy who actually wrote the game knows if it's a storygame or not?

Not if he doesn't actually know what a Storygame is.  I think he's confused "storygame" with "storytelling game" in the style of Vampire.

QuoteIf you redefine words so they have meanings nobody else accepts then yes, you can argue all sorts of wacky stuff and get into all sorts of pointless arguments, just like a lefty.

Those aren't MY definitions, they're the definitions of the people who CREATED storygames. Now you're the one being deliberately obtuse.

Quote from: Iron_Rain;1052870Pundit, when your own fanbase is pointing out your production values are shit, then... Your production values are shit. Citing two examples doesn't make a case. Listening to all your "uhs" wastes my time.

I never said my production values aren't shit.

I said it doesn't matter that my production values are shit. The channel is steadily growing, at a rate of about one subscriber per day at present, with a total averaged subscriber rate of 2.85 subscribers per day.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1052547I like your videos somewhat pundit but it cracks me up that you call yourself the final boss of internet shitlords.  I mean, I get it, you've got your ego to self inflate and an attempt to garner attention to maintain but dude you're not a pinprick spatter on the wall when it comes to internet bloodsport.  Call me when you get Internet Aristocrat/Mr. Metokur level.  Or even Razorfist if you want to stay focused on things that are (occasionally) gaming related.  You're a mini-boss.  Your the chaingunner or Hellknight of internet shitlords.  DGMR I will give you that you've got a good foundation - conversation of you triggers people at SJW havens like Somethingawful or rpg.net, so it's a good start but...yeah, no.

It's not a title I gave myself.

If you think the title is exaggerated, blame Pundit Derangement Syndrome.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052969Not if he doesn't actually know what a Storygame is.  I think he's confused "storygame" with "storytelling game" in the style of Vampire.

Those aren't MY definitions, they're the definitions of the people who CREATED storygames. Now you're the one being deliberately obtuse.

So where is this definition by "those people" of storygames? Can you post a link to something they said?

If we've got a single solid definition of a type of game that all can agree on, then we can have a productive conversation on whether a particular game fits that definition or not.

In the meantime, storygame as used here seems to refer to a shifting mess and is used to label games a particular poster HERE doesn't like.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1052989So where is this definition by "those people" of storygames? Can you post a link to something they said?

I think this post on Stack Exchanges covers the basics well.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/40905/what-constitutes-a-story-game

In a nutshell there is a range of answers centered on the fact that the campaign is focused on creating a narrative through the use of a game. As opposed to tabletop roleplaying game where the focus is on playing a character interacting with a setting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052970I never said my production values aren't shit.

I said it doesn't matter that my production values are shit. The channel is steadily growing, at a rate of about one subscriber per day at present, with a total averaged subscriber rate of 2.85 subscribers per day.

It probably is mattering and will matter if you dont learn to orate better. Even a 25% drop in the Uhs will get your point across more. And viewers will be more likely to remember your points.

Quote from: estar;1052992I think this post on Stack Exchanges covers the basics well.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/40905/what-constitutes-a-story-game

In a nutshell there is a range of answers centered on the fact that the campaign is focused on creating a narrative through the use of a game. As opposed to tabletop roleplaying game where the focus is on playing a character interacting with a setting.

Hmm, that link doesn't seem useful. It references the Story Games Forum, but I've never felt like there was a definition of Story Game there, and I've always felt that discussion of traditional RPGs was welcome there and it at least feels to me like to the extent the Story Games forum casts a net that includes or excludes games, that old school D&D or old school Traveller is included in the net.

I'm sure there are people who participate over at Story Games and in particular designers, who have their definition of Story Game which may not include OD&D or Classic Traveller.

So I still feel like the term Story Game is a mushy term used by people on both sides (as if there are two distinct sides...) to include or exclude games to their preferences.

Personally I don't think the hobby is well served by trying to draw lines that include or exclude particular games. To me the question is if you bring up your favorite game in the context of some discussion I'm involved in, how do you tie your game into the discussion. Now it does help to know generally what games might be of interest on a forum, so for example, you don't go to odd74 and try and ask questions about Vampire. But a discussion there about how Dungeon World can be used to play Keep on the Borderlands in a very cool way that helps understand how one might play it with OD&D might be just fine, or it might not... Other forums cast narrower or wider nets. Here, I'm not quite clear on the net being cast, but I follow discussions that are interesting to me. I guess I haven't actually started any threads here... I know if I started a thread related to any of the games I'm running (OD&D, RuneQuest 1/2, Classic Traveller 1977) I would be fine and welcome. I'd be less likely to start a discussion here about Burning Wheel...

Frank

I remember a fellow told me something once (he happened to be a self made multi millionaire) that the easiest thing in the world to be is critical.  I think there were a few uhs, but I watched a couple other videos and it does not seem to be a consistent problem, and since perfection if the enemy of the good, I think it is better to do something now, today, with what you have than be too concerned with perfection.

Quote from: ffilz;1052996Personally I don't think the hobby is well served by trying to draw lines that include or exclude particular games.

It not about exclusion or inclusion. It about whether figuring whether the discussion or product would be useful given one's interest.

Pretending to be a character interacting with a setting is not the same thing as collaborating on on creating a narrative or trying to achieve victory over an opponent/defined condition.

To be clear I am talking about Tabletop Roleplaying, Storygames, and wargames.

Some things are useful to all three, some things are useful to only one, some things are useful to two. But since all three involved sophisticated leisure activities with multiple things going on it useful to know what the focus of the conversation is going to be hence the categories.

The issue isn't new, the hobby has been wrestling this since the creation of the Blackmoor campaign, namely what is a wargame and what is tabletop roleplaying? Now storygames are added to the mix.

My view it is more straightforward than people make it out to be. Folks get confused because they are trying to classify rules which are incidental. What one needs to look at is what the campaign focuses on.

Are we here to work together to create a collabrative narrative? You are playing a storygame.
Are we here  to pretend to be characters in a setting? You are playing a roleplaying game.
Are we here to achieve victory over an opponent (competitive) or a defined endpoint (cooperative)? You are playing a wargame.

The rules everybody focused on is are just one of the tools used by the group to have fun doing any of the above. Rules can be written to explicitly support one of the above three. Or they could be written without any consideration to the above three and are used because they are found to be useful.

Quote from: estar;1053006It not about exclusion or inclusion. It about whether figuring whether the discussion or product would be useful given one's interest.

Pretending to be a character interacting with a setting is not the same thing as collaborating on on creating a narrative or trying to achieve victory over an opponent/defined condition.

To be clear I am talking about Tabletop Roleplaying, Storygames, and wargames.

Some things are useful to all three, some things are useful to only one, some things are useful to two. But since all three involved sophisticated leisure activities with multiple things going on it useful to know what the focus of the conversation is going to be hence the categories.

The issue isn't new, the hobby has been wrestling this since the creation of the Blackmoor campaign, namely what is a wargame and what is tabletop roleplaying? Now storygames are added to the mix.

My view it is more straightforward than people make it out to be. Folks get confused because they are trying to classify rules which are incidental. What one needs to look at is what the campaign focuses on.

Are we here to work together to create a collabrative narrative? You are playing a storygame.
Are we here  to pretend to be characters in a setting? You are playing a roleplaying game.
Are we here to achieve victory over an opponent (competitive) or a defined endpoint (cooperative)? You are playing a wargame.

The rules everybody focused on is are just one of the tools used by the group to have fun doing any of the above. Rules can be written to explicitly support one of the above three. Or they could be written without any consideration to the above three and are used because they are found to be useful.

On the one hand, that seems a useful categorization, on the other hand, I wonder how often folks would feel like more than one of those approaches would apply to the game they are playing, though if we focus on which of those is most important, maybe that helps distinguish. By that classification, I wouldn't say that I've played any games as a story game since I think all the gaming I have done, focus on pretending to be a character is the most important, even if there is collaboration among the players to guide the narrative or to achieve some endpoint. I'm pretty sure my play of Burning Wheel has been character focused, and I think even the play of Dogs in the Vinyard I have done is character focused. Outside of those two, I haven't actually played any other games from Forge/Story Games designers.

To me what would also be helpful is when talking about specific games to explain why you feel a specific game is one of the three categorizations. I'm a little leery of discussion of story games as a concept because so much of the conversation sounds like "those games I don't like even though I haven't actually played them or payed attention to how they are actually played."

Frank

Quote from: Iron_Rain;1052870Pundit, when your own fanbase is pointing out your production values are shit, then... Your production values are shit. Citing two examples doesn't make a case. Listening to all your "uhs" wastes my time.

You seriously don't have time for 'uhs'. I see this complaint a lot lately and I am getting the impression people may just be repeating stuff they hear online. This often to me feels like the whole never use passive voice thing. Personally I'd rather hear how people speak naturally (including the ums and uhs as they think their way around a topic) than have a bunch of jump cuts that mask them (or have the person obsess over them). Most of the you tubers I enjoy, don't use jump cuts and have those kinds of speech patterns. No real opinion on the tweet situation as I know little about over the edge. But this production value complaint seems like a quibble.

Quote from: ffilz;1053016I'm pretty sure my play of Burning Wheel has been character focused, and I think even the play of Dogs in the Vinyard I have done is character focused. Outside of those two, I haven't actually played any other games from Forge/Story Games designers.

However each of those games feature mechanics that work through the group collaborating as players not as their characters. In your experience how much of the time within the respective campaign was spend thinking as a player versus thinking what I would do as my character?

Mind you not what their respective rules said what you should be doing, but what actually happened when your group used these rules in a campaign.

Quote from: ffilz;1053016To me what would also be helpful is when talking about specific games to explain why you feel a specific game is one of the three categorizations.

I decide on the basis on how much of my time I am thinking as Rob Conley the player this game versus Rob Conley the guy who playing a character.

To be more specific.

There are mechanics that resolve something that you do as a character. I want to lift this boulder. The referee and I look at my Strength attribute, or my Lifting Skill, or see if I have the Strong or weak trait, and what happens happens.

There are mechanics that don't represent anything about your character, yet you as a player can use them. For example Fate Points, Whimsy Cards, biding on the outcome of a scene, and so on. I call these metagame mechanics because they are about the campaign in general not acting as your character.

To put it another way, if I can alter reality because I am God of Olympus then that acting as your character.
If I can alter reality because I can expend points via metagame mechanic then I am acting as a player.

The more you metagame the more likely the focus of the campaign is on creating a collaborative narrative thus more likely you are playing  a storygame not a tabletop roleplaying game.

Because it about focus is on a spectrum hence the fuzzy lines. But my opinion that there are a center to the different forms of gaming that it is useful to know.

To be clear however, the first rule of advice I give is think of what it is you and your group want to do and then assemble the elements to make it happen. So if the group wants to pretend to be Mormons battling evil and corruption in the old west than highly likely the campaign will be a tabletop roleplaying IRREGARDLESS of the rules you opt to use. Because everybody want to focus on being a character in that setting.

In contrast if the group want to work together in collabratively tell a story about Mormons battling evil and corruption in the old west. Then the campaign will be a storygame again irregardless of the rules you opt to use. Again because that what the group wants to focus on.

Even tho Boot Hill 2nd edition doesn't have any narrative mechanics it could be used as part of a storygame campaign because the group always retains the power to make up any shit they want via any system they want to use including fiat or consensus.

The same with tabletop roleplaying and the rules used to run it. Anything that doesn't fit with the focus of the campaign within the rules can be ignored by the referee, and anything not addressed by the rules can be adjudicated by the referee based on their knowledge of the setting and the characters.

However when it comes to publishing, or talking about techniques, you need a starting point that assumes things. Otherwise you are always starting from first principles. It helps to have a shorthand to communicate to you where I am coming from.

By and large my advice and the things I publish are for campaigns where players interact with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. Something I refer to consistently as tabletop roleplaying. My material and advice may be useful for a storygame campaign or a wargame campaign but that not what I am focused on.

The production value is fine for his video. I don't think pundit has the time or resources to spend editing the videos. I like the casual and off the cuff nature of the videos over the overly produced YouTube shows out there.

When a RPG channel has really good production I wonder how often they actually play games

Quote from: estar;1053028However each of those games feature mechanics that work through the group collaborating as players not as their characters. In your experience how much of the time within the respective campaign was spend thinking as a player versus thinking what I would do as my character?

Mind you not what their respective rules said what you should be doing, but what actually happened when your group used these rules in a campaign.



I decide on the basis on how much of my time I am thinking as Rob Conley the player this game versus Rob Conley the guy who playing a character.

To be more specific.

There are mechanics that resolve something that you do as a character. I want to lift this boulder. The referee and I look at my Strength attribute, or my Lifting Skill, or see if I have the Strong or weak trait, and what happens happens.

There are mechanics that don't represent anything about your character, yet you as a player can use them. For example Fate Points, Whimsy Cards, biding on the outcome of a scene, and so on. I call these metagame mechanics because they are about the campaign in general not acting as your character.

To put it another way, if I can alter reality because I am God of Olympus then that acting as your character.
If I can alter reality because I can expend points via metagame mechanic then I am acting as a player.

The more you metagame the more likely the focus of the campaign is on creating a collaborative narrative thus more likely you are playing  a storygame not a tabletop roleplaying game.

Because it about focus is on a spectrum hence the fuzzy lines. But my opinion that there are a center to the different forms of gaming that it is useful to know.

To be clear however, the first rule of advice I give is think of what it is you and your group want to do and then assemble the elements to make it happen. So if the group wants to pretend to be Mormons battling evil and corruption in the old west than highly likely the campaign will be a tabletop roleplaying IRREGARDLESS of the rules you opt to use. Because everybody want to focus on being a character in that setting.

In contrast if the group want to work together in collabratively tell a story about Mormons battling evil and corruption in the old west. Then the campaign will be a storygame again irregardless of the rules you opt to use. Again because that what the group wants to focus on.

Even tho Boot Hill 2nd edition doesn't have any narrative mechanics it could be used as part of a storygame campaign because the group always retains the power to make up any shit they want via any system they want to use including fiat or consensus.

The same with tabletop roleplaying and the rules used to run it. Anything that doesn't fit with the focus of the campaign within the rules can be ignored by the referee, and anything not addressed by the rules can be adjudicated by the referee based on their knowledge of the setting and the characters.

However when it comes to publishing, or talking about techniques, you need a starting point that assumes things. Otherwise you are always starting from first principles. It helps to have a shorthand to communicate to you where I am coming from.

By and large my advice and the things I publish are for campaigns where players interact with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. Something I refer to consistently as tabletop roleplaying. My material and advice may be useful for a storygame campaign or a wargame campaign but that not what I am focused on.

Ok, I'm not sure I totally agree with your separation, but it at least is something I can see how you break things out.

My feeling is that despite the meta-game mechanics in Burning Wheel, the way I would play it at least remains character focused. The meta-game mechanics mostly allow the character to succeed when odds are against him, which is totally a part of the fiction that inspires RPGs.

Dogs in the Vinyard is an interesting example. I think the game is still character focused, but it is focused in a way very different from more traditional RPGs, and top that off with the scenario structure, it sure looks different. But still, the player rolls dice for things the character is known for and uses the dice to succeed in specific actions towards resolving a conflict the way the character would like it resolved. It probably is somewhere in the middle of the continuum between what you would label an RPG and a Story Game. In my mind, the fact that it is at least in the middle of that continuum is probably what makes me feel like it's still the same sort of activity as OD&D. And maybe the fact that I have never tried any of the "Story Games" that land much closer to your classification is telling.

I think for me I still classify these two types of games as "role playing games" because when I try and distill what is unique about D&D (and subsequent games) it's the "shared imaginative space" and the multi-player cooperation/negotiation/rules arbitrated conflict that adjusts it as the game proceeds. To me, a player invoking the character's skills to accomplish tasks in the game world isn't all that different from the player invoking meta-gaming mechanics to influence the game world.

I all cases, I absolutely disavow any inclusion of a pastime where the purpose is for the "players" to play along with the "game master" so the "game master" can tell his story. There are certainly game and module texts that seem to encourage such play. From everything I have seen, that kind of thing is absolutely disavowed by the folks who hang out at storygames.com.

So back to the original post, without a universal definition of "Story Game" it's kind of hard to claim Jonathan Tweet is wrong in calling Over the Edge a "Story Game." I personally have not delved much at all into Over the Edge (I do own it, but never read much of it). From a quick skim, my guess would be that Jonathan is using "Story Game" to separate the game from traditional RPGs, it doesn't look like it has much for meta-game mechanics. Due to some of the loosey goosey aspects of the game, it may be easier to play story focused rather than character focused, so maybe that's what's going on. But without comparing Jonathan Tweet's definition of "Story Game" to the pundit's or Robert's, it's hard to say.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1052996Personally I don't think the hobby is well served by trying to draw lines that include or exclude particular games.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with dice. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Ffliz? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for D&D4e and you curse the grognards. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that D&D4e's failure, while tragic, probably saved gaming. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves gamers. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like hit points, alignment, hirelings. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent rolling dice and eating cheetos. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up your dice and roll up your character. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

(https://actorsmonologuechallenge.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/e98df83447ef9af51137f6f21921f0.jpg)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1053027You seriously don't have time for 'uhs'. I see this complaint a lot lately and I am getting the impression people may just be repeating stuff they hear online. This often to me feels like the whole never use passive voice thing. Personally I'd rather hear how people speak naturally (including the ums and uhs as they think their way around a topic) than have a bunch of jump cuts that mask them (or have the person obsess over them). Most of the you tubers I enjoy, don't use jump cuts and have those kinds of speech patterns. No real opinion on the tweet situation as I know little about over the edge. But this production value complaint seems like a quibble.

The whole dont "uh" was what I was taught both in school and during speech therapy, of which I needed alot.

I just came across a Harvard article on it and it hits on alot of the same things we were taught and even uses a similar phrasing "pause, think, answer." except it was more like "pause, think, continue" and how the "uhs" interfere with getting your point across in the oration lessons in elementary school. https://www.extension.harvard.edu/inside-extension/tips-public-speaking-eliminating-dreaded-um (https://www.extension.harvard.edu/inside-extension/tips-public-speaking-eliminating-dreaded-um)

Back on the other topic. Because oddly enough the "uhs" is a topic here... ahem...

The real question might be what is Tweets idea of what a storygame or storytelling game is? Is it closer to the Forge's and Pundits swine's "everything on earth"? Or is it more like White Wolfs "RPG with trendy new term slapped on for marketing."? Or something in between.

Has he defined what he thinks one is other than stating Over the Edge is one?

Did Tweet & Ryan Dancey work together?  I can honestly not remember, but I ask because I recall Dancey coming in with similarly addlepated ideas straight into Pundit's forum.  He was told, time and again:  no, old-school (NOT OSR) D&D players do not want fuckin' "Dogs in the Vineyard set in Greyhawk".  He then proceeded to jump around telling us we were wrong, that AD&D was a story game, and then when I pretty much told him he was wrong (mechanically, objectively, not anything subjective) about AD&D he quit the discussion claiming he'd won because we were wrong and we were wrong because he'd won and thereafter never posted here again.

J. Tweet's approach seems to have that same color, that's why I'm asking.

Dancey and Tweet both worked on 3E, albeit in very different capacities.

The definitions I'm using for Storygames come right out of Forge Theory.

Quote from: Omega;1053257The whole dont "uh" was what I was taught both in school and during speech therapy, of which I needed alot.

I just came across a Harvard article on it and it hits on alot of the same things we were taught and even uses a similar phrasing "pause, think, answer." except it was more like "pause, think, continue" and how the "uhs" interfere with getting your point across in the oration lessons in elementary school. https://www.extension.harvard.edu/inside-extension/tips-public-speaking-eliminating-dreaded-um (https://www.extension.harvard.edu/inside-extension/tips-public-speaking-eliminating-dreaded-um)

I encountered this idea in classes as well. And I think in formal settings, like giving a business presentation, it can be useful. I also think it can be a stylistic choice for some people. But I also disagree somewhat with the conclusions in the linked article. My feeling is it comes across as stiff when people totally remove these kinds of conversational mannerisms from their speaking voice. And there is a place for conversational styles of public speaking (particularly on platforms like youtube). My experience is most people are not bothered about 'ums' unless the speaker uses them excessively, or unless someone like Stephen D Cohen tells them they are a bad idea (just like no one really notices the passive voice that much until it is brought to their attention). Again, not saying the advice doesn't have a place. But it is largely a stylistic issue. Personally, I find I prefer speakers who have a conversational style that includes the use of 'ums' (particularly when it indicates that they are thinking). And I think people get too caught up in looking for it, simply because a teacher once told them 'never um and uh' or 'never use the passive voice'. I mention them together because they are similarly repeated on the internet, and I don't think it is necessarily good for us to take that advice too much to heart.

When it comes to the types of video presentations we are talking about, people have two basic options to remove ums and uhs. One is to edit. That is fine, but it impacts the overall flow of the recording. And it presents us with a version of the speaker that doesn't match the reality. Some people want to sound exactly the way they do in real life, rather than present a more perfect version of themselves. Personally, I have more respect for you tubers who don't use jump cuts to work around those kinds of quirks in their speech. The second option is to cultivate a way of speaking that avoids ums and uhs. That is fine if you want to do that (I did that for a speaking for business course once). The problem is once you cultivate it, it can be difficult to turn off, and it can impact how you talk to people in your daily life. Not everyone wants to sound that way when they are talking to their friends and family (because again it can come off as stiff). Ultimately, it is a choice. If it genuinely bothers people, they shouldn't listen to people who um and uh. But I just question how many people it truly bothers, unless they've been told they should be bothered by it. And I think the notion expressed in an earlier post, that it somehow wasted the listener's time, makes zero sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053294The definitions I'm using for Storygames come right out of Forge Theory.

Well there's your problem right there.

Fuck uhs and umms. Everyone should shut their pie hole during pauses. No reason to be uttering sounds that don't add content. Uhs aren't guitar solos between sentences.

We taught that in special education decades ago. I actually had kids do air guitar or air drums instead of umms.

The main reason is if you're thinking about what to say next, there's no need to give audio to that. Silence isn't your enemy. More importantly, uhs and umms drain gravitas from the speaker's voice.

And that's particularly rough with podcasts, or videos where you are not engaged by body language, facial expressions, etc.

Yes, I know we're all supposed to only judge content, but humans fucking suck and highly value presentation.

THAT SAID...there are certainly people making BANK with unedited podcasts/videos full of uhs and umms.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053067(https://actorsmonologuechallenge.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/e98df83447ef9af51137f6f21921f0.jpg)

I never understood how Jack Nicholson wasn't the hero of A Few Good Men.

And Kyle, that rendition was awesome.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1053350Fuck uhs and umms. Everyone should shut their pie hole during pauses. No reason to be uttering sounds that don't add content. Uhs aren't guitar solos between sentences.

We taught that in special education decades ago. I actually had kids do air guitar or air drums instead of umms.

The main reason is if you're thinking about what to say next, there's no need to give audio to that. Silence isn't your enemy. More importantly, uhs and umms drain gravitas from the speaker's voice.

And that's particularly rough with podcasts, or videos where you are not engaged by body language, facial expressions, etc.

Yes, I know we're all supposed to only judge content, but humans fucking suck and highly value presentation.

THAT SAID...there are certainly people making BANK with unedited podcasts/videos full of uhs and umms.

But you are not accounting for difference in taste. I can understand, if the amount of ums and uhs are overwhelming. But all I can say, is I would genuinely prefer to listen to someone who occasionally ums or uhs when they are thinking about their response. I find it much more conversational and natural sounding. It definitely doesn't impact my ability to understand what is being said. Maybe this is an issue that has been important to you for a while. Some people like high production values. Some people are naturally suspicious of high production values. And some folk are perfectly aware that we are often instructed not to use ums and uhs and think it is a stupid rule. Whether you are pausing, or whether you are filling in that space with a sound, you are still breaking the flow in some way. I can still tell you are having a moment to gather your thoughts if there is a pause. It doesn't make an enormous functional difference if that pause is silent or has sound. But I think the more natural impulse is to fill it with sound. So when I hear someone who pauses instead, it comes off as overly polished to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1053352But you are not accounting for difference in taste.

YouTube in full sensorama must be quite an experience! :D

As I said, plenty of ummers are making piles of dough on YT and podcasts so clearly there's an audience for unpolished, more "natural" work. I have no idea if that audience is putting up with the uhs and umms because the content is so compelling to them or whether they don't notice / don't mind / don't care.

Though...I hear people talk about how content matters so much to them, but then won't watch excellent older films or brilliant low budget films because of the lack of modern studio production values.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1053378YouTube in full sensorama must be quite an experience! :D

As I said, plenty of ummers are making piles of dough on YT and podcasts so clearly there's an audience for unpolished, more "natural" work. I have no idea if that audience is putting up with the uhs and umms because the content is so compelling to them or whether they don't notice / don't mind / don't care.

I think people just enjoy work that isn't edited and people who seem like they are speaking in their normal voice. Personally I dislike when podcasts or youtube videos cut around that stuff. I will watch/listen to some despite that because the content is good enough. But when I hear the jump cutting, I know surgery has been done what the person is saying and I am not getting an unfiltered, continuous series of thoughts from them (which matters because I thin it is very easy to edit together a cogent point and a lot harder to make one on the fly in a live discussion). Again though, at the end of the day, there isn't really much difference between a pause and an 'uh'. I've never understood why the classroom has given the pause special place, when it has pretty much the same impact on what the person is saying. If someone can eliminate the pause itself, and not have any break in what they are saying, then that would be something more. But since the pause and the uh are used to think about what you are saying, I think there is usually a trade off even with that.

QuoteThough...I hear people talk about how content matters so much to them, but then won't watch excellent older films or brilliant low budget films because of the lack of modern studio production values.

They are missing out. Well produced and polished doesn't equal good content. Nothing wrong with enjoying a film that is well polished. But there are a lot of truly great movies that people spoiled by modern styles of film making have a hard time enjoying.

I find people in the hobby use the word "storygame" a lot like some people use the word "hipster". It's simultaneously a vague, sometimes contradictory, derogatory statement, and held up by some as a banner of newness, media-challenging, and progressive notions. It serves a social purpose and muddies, rather than clarifies, classification.

I suspect Johnathan Tweet is probably just trying to seem cool to a certain crowd, which is fine. He's already cool. Over the Edge is already a great game. But labels on these things are a quagmire of socio-political nonsense. Heck, Kurt Vonnegut jr. insisted his novels weren't science fiction. They still won Hugo and Nebula awards for science fiction. You can always leave the meta-textual analysis to critics.

//Panjumanju

So, a story-game is a game for story creation. Like those Batman story dice my son bought.

D&D can and has been drifted to be a story creation game, but as Rob says, it's really intended more for you-are-the-hero immersion with a side order of wargaming.

Lots of RPGs do include metagame mechanics designed to make the result of game play resemble a particular kind of story (eg Fate points, Drama points, Force points and some Action Points). Forge theory says these aren't story creation games, they're story simulation games, more akin to pastiche than Real Drama.  I expect Over The Edge falls in this category.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1053027You seriously don't have time for 'uhs'. I see this complaint a lot lately and I am getting the impression people may just be repeating stuff they hear online. This often to me feels like the whole never use passive voice thing. Personally I'd rather hear how people speak naturally (including the ums and uhs as they think their way around a topic) than have a bunch of jump cuts that mask them (or have the person obsess over them). Most of the you tubers I enjoy, don't use jump cuts and have those kinds of speech patterns. No real opinion on the tweet situation as I know little about over the edge. But this production value complaint seems like a quibble.

"Urr"'ing is a mild form of stammering that you get when you're socialized around people that aren't confident speakers and/or quick thinkers. It's in the same ballpark as people who speak fast (quick thinkers) or are conversationally eloquent (confident speakers). This shit happens when you're a kid, gets worse as a teenager and your last chance to change it is your 20's, reaching into your 30's. That's why speech education classes are important, at least to provide awareness of the issue.

It's actually a big thing and it's considered unattractive, distracting and indicative of confidence to the other party in the conversation you're having, particularly in the U.S but also to a lesser extent globally. Sounding like a well-produced voice actor is consider a pretty big plus when it comes to extrapersonal perception. Hell, I know I like it better when I'm talking to someone not "urr"'ing every ten seconds. I make a serious effort not to do it on my end and it's actually had a noticeable effect on my own eloquence.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053067(https://actorsmonologuechallenge.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/e98df83447ef9af51137f6f21921f0.jpg)

You fucking troll.

I love it!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053294The definitions I'm using for Storygames come right out of Forge Theory.

Explaneth this "Forge Theory" as you called it. Most curious.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1053382I think people just enjoy work that isn't edited and people who seem like they are speaking in their normal voice. Personally I dislike when podcasts or youtube videos cut around that stuff. I will watch/listen to some despite that because the content is good enough. But when I hear the jump cutting, I know surgery has been done what the person is saying and I am not getting an unfiltered, continuous series of thoughts from them (which matters because I thin it is very easy to edit together a cogent point and a lot harder to make one on the fly in a live discussion). Again though, at the end of the day, there isn't really much difference between a pause and an 'uh'. I've never understood why the classroom has given the pause special place, when it has pretty much the same impact on what the person is saying. If someone can eliminate the pause itself, and not have any break in what they are saying, then that would be something more. But since the pause and the uh are used to think about what you are saying, I think there is usually a trade off even with that.



They are missing out. Well produced and polished doesn't equal good content. Nothing wrong with enjoying a film that is well polished. But there are a lot of truly great movies that people spoiled by modern styles of film making have a hard time enjoying.

As above, depends on how quick a thinker you are (what NWOD calls "Wits") and how eloquent you are in expressing yourself (what NWOD calls... Expression, funnily enough).

Pundit's rants stop being entertaining when he just bumbles on. He has a specific thing he wants to say but he can be his own worst enemy. 1. Because his points tend to run out of steam quick or he's essentially repeating himself in different words. 2. Because he doesn't have that "I'll tell you, that fucking [insert SJW-of-the-week here] prick. You see this shit that they said? Where the fuck do they get the balls to say that? That. Fuck. Was the guy that got caught lackin' on [insert fuck-up here] and then they think they can come at me?". I mean, he could be the Joey Diaz of RPG personalities if only he'd embrace that. Fuck, I'd pay a $1-2 subscription just to hear something like that four times a month.

And even then, it more often than not comes down to the personality of the speaker or the mode of speech. When LordKat was cussing the shit out of Spoony years back, that whole rant was incredibly entertaining and it was pretty engaging. You could tell the speaker had a position and knew what the fuck he was talking about on that specific subject. In fact, we can keep it real mainstream and go for the Howard Stern style of monologing -- he brings to life the adage of "no dead air". I love listening to Howard Stern interviews, not just because of the "hollywood people" he has on but because he. Doesn't. Fucking. Stammer.

Talking is a fucking skill, yo.

Quote from: Panjumanju;1053431I find people in the hobby use the word "storygame" a lot like some people use the word "hipster". It's simultaneously a vague, sometimes contradictory, derogatory statement, and held up by some as a banner of newness, media-challenging, and progressive notions. It serves a social purpose and muddies, rather than clarifies, classification.

Storygames derive from role-playing games in much the same way pop-punk came out of hardcore punk by throwing in pop harmonies, mainstream rock chords and softer subject matter. In other words, shit that had nothing to do with the original form and which owes more to its adulterated elements than the source it sprang from.

No-one is calling storygames "hipster" (and if they are, they're idiots). It's that hipster nerds gravitate towards storygames because the buy-ins lower socially and mechanically and because they're not looking to play RPGs but are looking for a way to flex their storytelling impulses in a semi-codified form so it doesn't devolve into "He said, she said". PTBA games are about lily-jumping from one emotional moment to the next  at their core -- Shadowrun et al. is about achieving objectives in as efficient manner as possible based on the abilities of the PCs and the knowledge of the players. One is, at its heart, incredibly nerdy and rewards deep-diving and the other is something more nerd-adjacent and therefore attracts similar crowds that party game and board games do.

I think this particular definition war is causing more harm than good and no longer worth fighting, and there are plenty of other hills which need my attention.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1052525Surely the guy who actually wrote the game knows if it's a storygame or not?

Not necessarily.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1052525If you redefine words so they have meanings nobody else accepts then yes, you can argue all sorts of wacky stuff and get into all sorts of pointless arguments, just like a lefty.

Yerp.

Quote from: Iron_Rain;1052870Pundit, when your own fanbase is pointing out your production values are shit, then... Your production values are shit. Citing two examples doesn't make a case. Listening to all your "uhs" wastes my time.

He literally doesn't understand what makes the channels he's imitating successful. It's like watching an alien try to human.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052969I think he's confused "storygame" with "storytelling game" in the style of Vampire.

Oh for fuck sake.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053294The definitions I'm using for Storygames come right out of Forge Theory.

ORLY?

Sorcerer was literally that theory put into practice, and it's nothing like what most 'storygames' are accused of being. It has no metacurrency, dice are only used to resolve conflicts, players cannot edit scenes, all the thematic content is front loaded, and it can be played entirely from first person perspective.

The new OTE can best be described as an intention (rather than action or conflict) resolution engine, and follows a 'Fortune in the Middle' model. You state your intent, roll to determine the result, and then determine which actions created that result. The reroll mechanic then adds some nuance as it gives you the opportunity to state the actions you take after the roll to change it. All in all it's not a bad mechanic, just one which does nothing to facilitate the OTE experience.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1053438"Urr"'ing is a mild form of stammering that you get when you're socialized around people that aren't confident speakers and/or quick thinkers.

I am not an expert but pretty sure this just isn't true. It is just an interjection. My sister had a stammer growing up, and from what I recall, interjections are not considered to be any kind of stammer. Bothering to look it up just to see if there is anything here and not finding it (just finding that any break in speech is considered a disfluency, and that stutters are also disfluency, but most of the sites then break down all the disfluencies that are considered perfectly normal and not stutters----and they all include breaks like 'um' and 'ur'. I see a lot of assertions in this post. But I am not going to take the word of a random poster on the internet who uses NWOD as evidence. What I can say with certainly is I don't share your revulsion for speakers who periodically insert these kinds of interjection into their speech, and frankly I prefer speakers who do so in order to select the right words. I do appreciate a quick-wit as well. But that is a separate thing. If someone is pausing, instead of adding in an 'uh', that is just replacing the 'uh' with a pause, not a sign that they think fast. Some people think fast, and that is great. But I come from the North East, where fast speech is pretty common. And the flip side of it, is it can come off as being a bit of con artist when you speak that way. I am more inclined to trust a speaker who interjects or pauses, than one who speaks rapidly without breaks. Again, a lot of this comes down to taste and style. To me, the criticism in this post, comes off like saying a person who speaks with a regional accent is speaking incorrectly.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053442Sorcerer was literally that theory put into practice, and it's nothing like what most 'storygames' are accused of being. It has no metacurrency, dice are only used to resolve conflicts, players cannot edit scenes, all the thematic content is front loaded, and it can be played entirely from first person perspective.

One way I noticed to force a campaign to follow a particular narrative is constrain the options. That the players only have a few options to choose form all of which are related to the narrative of the campaign. In a D&D campaign this would be accomplished by a referee adjudicating in a way that most would call railroading. In Sorceror and Dog in the Vineyard, the mechanics are designed to narrow the scope of the campaign to a specific type of situation with a limited range of characters meant to deal with these situations.

Which is why these types of games don't have widespread appeal. They are so narrow that they have the same type of appeal as a adventure module or a campaign supplement.

Again one can not look solely at the mechanics to determine what kind of game is being played in a given campaign. One has to look at what is the primary focus to determine whether it is a storygame, wargame, or tabletop roleplaying. The same for a product or supplement.

Now it may well be that the author claims that it support his chosen game but hobbyists find it not to be the case. However given the diversity of how hobbyists approach these game it rarely a clear cut answer. The general I find there are always a few that because of the way they think about tabletop roleplaying, wargames, or storygame find X useful even tho a majority of the hobbyists disagree.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053294The definitions I'm using for Storygames come right out of Forge Theory.

Could you link to the specific definitions from there that you are using? I've participated on both the Forge and Story Games forums and have never felt like they had definitions that said an RPG is that, but our (story) games are this.

Quote from: estar;1053482One way I noticed to force a campaign to follow a particular narrative is constrain the options. That the players only have a few options to choose form all of which are related to the narrative of the campaign. In a D&D campaign this would be accomplished by a referee adjudicating in a way that most would call railroading. In Sorceror and Dog in the Vineyard, the mechanics are designed to narrow the scope of the campaign to a specific type of situation with a limited range of characters meant to deal with these situations.

Which is why these types of games don't have widespread appeal. They are so narrow that they have the same type of appeal as a adventure module or a campaign supplement.

Again one can not look solely at the mechanics to determine what kind of game is being played in a given campaign. One has to look at what is the primary focus to determine whether it is a storygame, wargame, or tabletop roleplaying. The same for a product or supplement.

Now it may well be that the author claims that it support his chosen game but hobbyists find it not to be the case. However given the diversity of how hobbyists approach these game it rarely a clear cut answer. The general I find there are always a few that because of the way they think about tabletop roleplaying, wargames, or storygame find X useful even tho a majority of the hobbyists disagree.

Does a narrow focus of the game make it a Story Game rather than an RPG? Is EPT less of an RPG than D&D because it has a specific setting?

Both Sorceror and Dogs in the Vinyard have been used in various settings (Sorceror even has a Ron Edwards supplement for swords and sorcery play). DitV has various hacks for other settings.

I agree that those games have a narrower focus, but they still feel like the same sort of game as D&D to me.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1053492Does a narrow focus of the game make it a Story Game rather than an RPG?

Depends what being narrowed. Strip The Fantasy Trip of everything but the combat rules and you have the wargame Melee. Melee is more narrow than The Fantasy Trip. Again it about focus, if the choices are constrained to the point where the players can only do thing that make sense in terms of whatever narrative the author wrote then yes it starts to become a storygame rather than a tabletop RPG.

I been pretty clear that is about focus not mechanics. Perhaps I need to spell it out but focus is "fuzzy". People are not one-dimensional when it comes to these games. The default is to take a little of that and a little of this and run with it. So yes it is confusing to say that is X and that is Y.

Quote from: ffilz;1053492Is EPT less of an RPG than D&D because it has a specific setting?

Barker isn't pushing for a particular narrative outcomes with EPT. He presenting what in his view a cool place for for players to explore and wrote a set of mechanics to reflect the reality of the characters within that setting. What they do from that point on is up to them. And that literally the first campaign Barker ran was about with the party being barbarians from the southern continent fresh off a boat.

Quote from: ffilz;1053492Both Sorceror and Dogs in the Vinyard have been used in various settings (Sorceror even has a Ron Edwards supplement for swords and sorcery play). DitV has various hacks for other settings.

Sure and the combined package is probably an RPG now. Scope was expanded by the author to cover more of the grounds a more general fantasy RPG. Doesn't make the original different. Melee is still a wargame despite being combined with Wizard and In the Labyrinth to make The Fantasy Trip RPG.

Quote from: ffilz;1053492I agree that those games have a narrower focus, but they still feel like the same sort of game as D&D to me.

And what if the player doesn't want to play a sorcerer using just the original game? What if he doesn't want to deal with demons as his character?

A better rebuttal to my argument would been to mention Call of Cthulu. Here we have a game that describes a very specific situation, dealing with the Cthulu Mythos. Campaigns tend to have a similar arc, with the players trying to uncover the mysteries before becoming hopelessly insane. Why is Call of Cthulu a storygame?

My opinion is because it describe the setting (generally the 1920s) and how the Cthulu Mythos fits into it. Then the players are free to make any character that would be possible to exist in the setting. It quite easy for a player to make a character that had nothing useful for a Mythos investigation. Instead focus on being a 1920s gangster. The older editions of Call of Cthulu (the ones I read) make for a nice 1920s RPG period. You just get a layer of Mythos if you want to go that route.

Sorcerer could been something like that but it strips everything else out to the point is that the author only want the campaign to be about Sorcerers dealing with demons. While in Call of Cthulu all the added elements meant that a broad variety of Mythos campaigns could be run rather than assuming everybody a resident of Miskatonic U for example. You could start out with everybody as a member of a Chicago mob gang deal with that for a few sessions and then start throwing Mythos stuff as a twist to the campaign.

IN conclusion I think narrowing the scope to force the players to deal with a narrative is not as interesting as using metagame mechanics which is why the latter is more prevalent in storygames.

Estar, Pendragon 5th edition is a better counter to your argument: it's ultra-focused (all players are noble, land-owning knights at Arthur's service), and the rules have built-in genre assumptions (behave like a honoured knight > gain Glory > become a better knight). If you don't want to use it as intended (I want to be a mage! Or a thief! Or to depose the Pendragon dynasty and become a Robberbaron!) the rules will fight you.

But then, I've  always found Pendragon a "storygame", which I understand as just another flavor within the tabletop rpgs umbrella. ;)

Quote from: estar;1053496Depends what being narrowed. Strip The Fantasy Trip of everything but the combat rules and you have the wargame Melee. Melee is more narrow than The Fantasy Trip. Again it about focus, if the choices are constrained to the point where the players can only do thing that make sense in terms of whatever narrative the author wrote then yes it starts to become a storygame rather than a tabletop RPG.

I been pretty clear that is about focus not mechanics. Perhaps I need to spell it out but focus is "fuzzy". People are not one-dimensional when it comes to these games. The default is to take a little of that and a little of this and run with it. So yes it is confusing to say that is X and that is Y.



Barker isn't pushing for a particular narrative outcomes with EPT. He presenting what in his view a cool place for for players to explore and wrote a set of mechanics to reflect the reality of the characters within that setting. What they do from that point on is up to them. And that literally the first campaign Barker ran was about with the party being barbarians from the southern continent fresh off a boat.




Sure and the combined package is probably an RPG now. Scope was expanded by the author to cover more of the grounds a more general fantasy RPG. Doesn't make the original different. Melee is still a wargame despite being combined with Wizard and In the Labyrinth to make The Fantasy Trip RPG.

 And what if the player doesn't want to play a sorcerer using just the original game? What if he doesn't want to deal with demons as his character?

A better rebuttal to my argument would been to mention Call of Cthulu. Here we have a game that describes a very specific situation, dealing with the Cthulu Mythos. Campaigns tend to have a similar arc, with the players trying to uncover the mysteries before becoming hopelessly insane. Why is Call of Cthulu a storygame?

My opinion is because it describe the setting (generally the 1920s) and how the Cthulu Mythos fits into it. Then the players are free to make any character that would be possible to exist in the setting. It quite easy for a player to make a character that had nothing useful for a Mythos investigation. Instead focus on being a 1920s gangster. The older editions of Call of Cthulu (the ones I read) make for a nice 1920s RPG period. You just get a layer of Mythos if you want to go that route.

Sorcerer could been something like that but it strips everything else out to the point is that the author only want the campaign to be about Sorcerers dealing with demons. While in Call of Cthulu all the added elements meant that a broad variety of Mythos campaigns could be run rather than assuming everybody a resident of Miskatonic U for example. You could start out with everybody as a member of a Chicago mob gang deal with that for a few sessions and then start throwing Mythos stuff as a twist to the campaign.

IN conclusion I think narrowing the scope to force the players to deal with a narrative is not as interesting as using metagame mechanics which is why the latter is more prevalent in storygames.

I see where you are going. If we take your angle, one of the problems in labeling a game a story game is we still have a spectrum and different folks will draw their line in the sand in a different place, thus the continued "that's a story game not an RPG" "no it's an RPG" or "no it's an RPG AND a story game"... I think there's actually a spectrum from wargame to RPG also, clearly yes, Melee as a board game is a wargame, but it doesn't take much to start playing it as an RPG (and I appreciate your pointing out that how the players use the game does matter in the distinction).

One wording I wish you had avoided was narrative outcome. Sorceror and Dogs in the Vinyard may be more narrative focused, but they aren't invested in a particular outcome for a story. At least not in the same way the a "railroaded" game (that may have been intended to be an RPG but maybe isn't the way it's actually played). One of the issues I have with the "story game" label is it feels like it's trying to lump two different styles of game together.

In some ways, it would help to use Venn diagrams to show the different styles of gaming and how they and their adherents overlap. To me, that would show we have a large community with some shared interests. Within that community it's perfectly fine to have sub-communities that are focused in different directions. There's nothing wrong (and lots good) about the ODD74 board, and there's nothing wrong (and lots good) about boards that welcome discussion of everything from Melee to D&D to Vampire to Sorceror and more.

Frank

Just to clarify: I'm with Ffilz here, in that the kind of "storygames" we are talking about are actually tabletop replaying games. If we were talking about the likes of Baron Munchalsen or The Quiet Year, them yeah it could be fruitful to draw a line in the sand. But that's not the case here.

Quote from: Itachi;1053500Just to clarify: I'm with Ffilz here, in that the kind of "storygames" we are talking about are actually tabletop replaying games. If we were talking about the likes of Baron Munchalsen or The Quiet Year, them yeah it could be fruitful to draw a line in the sand. But that's not the case here.

Yes. This is why Sorcerer, Over the Edge and Pendragon are all RPGs not storygames. Sorcerer is a Narrativist rpg in Forgespeak while Pendragon is Dramatist Simulation, but both are primarily focused on playing the character. Sorcerer is also intended to create 'story now' giving it a Storygame element. And so it is Incoherent and thus Bad. :p

Quote from: ffilz;1053499me is we still have a spectrum and different folks will draw their line in the sand in a different place,

Agreed, which is why I like focus and like to talk about what define the center of each category. There going to be some games that will split the focus just about evenly.

Quote from: ffilz;1053499I think there's actually a spectrum from wargame to RPG also, clearly yes, Melee as a board game is a wargame,

No disagreement there.

Quote from: ffilz;1053499One wording I wish you had avoided was narrative outcome. Sorceror and Dogs in the Vinyard may be more narrative focused, but they aren't invested in a particular outcome for a story. At least not in the same way the a "railroaded" game (that may have been intended to be an RPG but maybe isn't the way it's actually played). One of the issues I have with the "story game" label is it feels like it's trying to lump two different styles of game together.

For games like Sorceror and Dogs in the Vineyard what makes them approach the boundary of storygames is that the range of outcome is compressed. Maybe not a particular outcome but a narrow range of narrative outcomes.

Keeping in mind that that I am aware there a spectrum when it comes to these things.

Quote from: ffilz;1053499In some ways, it would help to use Venn diagrams to show the different styles of gaming and how they and their adherents overlap.

I assume everything is a hybrid with a little bit of this and a little bit that.

As far as the realm of things we are discussing I see three hubs

All three about using mechanics of a game in different ways to realize their goals.

Do I want to collaborate on creating a story (storygame)
Do I want to defeat my opponent (competitive wargame) or achieve some victory condition (cooperative wargame)
Do I want to experience a setting as a character (roleplaying games)

If the last is done with a human referee adjudicating the actions of the character while interacting with the setting then it is tabletop roleplaying. If it is a software algorithm it is a computer RPG, if the software algorithm can handle multiple players at once then it is a MMORPG. If the rules of a sport are used to adjudicate the action then it is a LARP.

Quote from: ffilz;1053499To me, that would show we have a large community with some shared interests. Within that community it's perfectly fine to have sub-communities that are focused in different directions. There's nothing wrong (and lots good) about the ODD74 board, and there's nothing wrong (and lots good) about boards that welcome discussion of everything from Melee to D&D to Vampire to Sorceror and more.

My opinion is that tabletop roleplaying is still such a new phenomenon as these things go that people are still coming to grips to what it is. That gaming (all stripes) since 1970 has experienced a revolution in diversity that people are still coming up with new categories of gameplay. One that seen relatively new expansion are a bunch of boardgames incorporating cooperative play to beat some victory condition like Shadowrun Crossfire and has rules for campaign play built in.

My opinion what D&D and games like D&D represent is a system that allow people to experience a virtual reality using nothing but pen, paper, maybe some dice, and a human referee. That major difference between Blackmoor and the other campaign being run at the time was it focus on the experience of being a individual character.

Quote from: Itachi;1053500Just to clarify: I'm with Ffilz here, in that the kind of "storygames" we are talking about are actually tabletop replaying games. If we were talking about the likes of Baron Munchalsen or The Quiet Year, them yeah it could be fruitful to draw a line in the sand. But that's not the case here.

Yet there a class of games using the elements of a RPG that are very narrow in focus that are often promoted as being special in that they promote story or create a narrative by default.

In regards to the thread, I always had the opinion that the Pundit arguments against storygames or the "swine" are overblown. The history of the industry as shown that despite all the praise heaped on them, they don't sell any better than any other random 2nd or 3rd tier RPG, and people seem to get bored with a lot quicker. And the one major release that was based on GNS/Forge theory D&D 4e imploded dramatically.

By far traditional tabletop roleplaying games is more popular than even the bestseller that have a heavy narrative/story focus like Fate. And we all dwarf by the resurgence new wave of boardgames. And that is dwarfed by the juggernaut of Computer Games.

The thing that keeping everything afloat is the revolution of digital technology which dramatically dropped the cost of producing, distributing, and promoting this stuff.

And be glad the boardgames guys pulled their head of their asses and figured how how make fun new games again back in the 2000s.

Quote from: estar;1053516In regards to the thread, I always had the opinion that the Pundit arguments against storygames or the "swine" are overblown. The history of the industry as shown that despite all the praise heaped on them, they don't sell any better than any other random 2nd or 3rd tier RPG, and people seem to get bored with a lot quicker. And the one major release that was based on GNS/Forge theory D&D 4e imploded dramatically.

By far traditional tabletop roleplaying games is more popular than even the bestseller that have a heavy narrative/story focus like Fate. And we all dwarf by the resurgence new wave of boardgames. And that is dwarfed by the juggernaut of Computer Games.

The thing that keeping everything afloat is the revolution of digital technology which dramatically dropped the cost of producing, distributing, and promoting this stuff.

And be glad the boardgames guys pulled their head of their asses and figured how how make fun new games again back in the 2000s.

I appreciate your attempt to justify your categorization and acknowledgement of how all these games fit together in a wider sense, it feels a bit less like a "game I don't like = story game = bad game or nothing to do with RPGs".

It would be interesting to know what Jonathan Tweet defines "story game" as. I could see folks using as a definition the types of games that might be discussed at storygames.com, by which nature Over the Edge as a Story Game makes sense, though so does D&D. But I also see a point of using Story Game to refer to games like Sorceror or Dogs in the Vinyard or the even more divergent games that have come out of the Forge community. I just hope that Story Games is NOT used in a way that lumps those games in with railroaded plot games where the GM (or the publisher) push their story line because that's a very different thing (and sometimes under the guise of a traditional RPG).

Frank

"Storygame" = Narrative "RPG", often without a GM, or where the Players (not the GM) are the final arbiter of what happens to the PC.

Quote from: ffilz;1053527I just hope that Story Games is NOT used in a way that lumps those games in with railroaded plot games where the GM (or the publisher) push their story line because that's a very different thing (and sometimes under the guise of a traditional RPG).

Ironic you said that because the railroad GM is perhaps the club used by the alternative (when they go negative which is no different than any other niche) beat over the head of traditional tabletop roleplaying games.

Last time I checked the story-games forum there were a fair bunch of threads talking about playing OSR games.

And this is why shoehorning games into categories like 'storygame' is a frustrating and meaningless pastime. It's the worst kind of word in that it seems to mean something when it actually doesn't, which is why most of the semantic wars over it are about establishing tribal lines rather than facilitating clear communication.

Quote from: estar;1053482One way I noticed to force a campaign to follow a particular narrative is constrain the options.

Of course.

Quote from: estar;1053482That the players only have a few options to choose form all of which are related to the narrative of the campaign.

You mean like Races, Classes, Spells, and Feats?

Quote from: estar;1053482In a D&D campaign this would be accomplished by a referee adjudicating in a way that most would call railroading.

Also all of the above.

Quote from: estar;1053482In Sorceror and Dog in the Vineyard, the mechanics are designed to narrow the scope of the campaign to a specific type of situation with a limited range of characters meant to deal with these situations.

Bullshit.

Quote from: estar;1053482Which is why these types of games don't have widespread appeal. They are so narrow that they have the same type of appeal as a adventure module or a campaign supplement.

Sorcerer is less focused and constrained than D&D.

Quote from: estar;1053482Again one can not look solely at the mechanics to determine what kind of game is being played in a given campaign.

The the designer failed, as mechanics are supposed to help the game be about what it's supposed to be about.

Quote from: estar;1053496I been pretty clear that is about focus not mechanics.

If the mechanics don't affect the focus, then they're useless as that's their entire purpose. Ditch that and you might as well just be flipping a coin.

Quote from: estar;1053496He presenting what in his view a cool place for for players to explore and wrote a set of mechanics to reflect the reality of the characters within that setting.

And if those mechanics had enabled players to dramatically edit scenes then the exploration aspect would have suffered, regardless of the intended focus.

Quote from: estar;1053496And what if the player doesn't want to play a sorcerer using just the original game? What if he doesn't want to deal with demons as his character?

You mean they don't want to deal with meaningful choices and dilemmas, which are what Demons are a metaphor for?

I guess find another game.

Quote from: estar;1053496Sorcerer could been something like that but it strips everything else out to the point is that the author only want the campaign to be about Sorcerers dealing with demons.

No, it ditches all the extraneous shit and distills the most meaningful elements. You're getting caught up on a literal interpretation of Demons and Sorcerers which never even existed in the original text.

Quote from: estar;1053514For games like Sorceror and Dogs in the Vineyard what makes them approach the boundary of storygames is that the range of outcome is compressed. Maybe not a particular outcome but a narrow range of narrative outcomes.

Both Sorcerer and Dogs have a wider range of outcomes than D&D, which again is highly constrained.

Quote from: TJS;1053537Last time I checked the story-games forum there were a fair bunch of threads talking about playing OSR games.

They're obviously trying to learn from more successful game publishers and GMs.

Quote from: estar;1053536Ironic you said that because the railroad GM is perhaps the club used by the alternative (when they go negative which is no different than any other niche) beat over the head of traditional tabletop roleplaying games.

Yea, so true... Railroading is certainly a club flailed wildly around...

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541The the designer failed, as mechanics are supposed to help the game be about what it's supposed to be about.

Sometimes having mechanics for something gets in the way of that thing. Eg in-person character interaction where you talk as your character may be harmed by having social interaction mechanics. In a LARP you may actually want to hit people with your 'sword', not have the GM roll a die to see if you hit. In Prussian Free Kriegsspiel there are basically no mechanics, just referee adjudication based on his military knowledge plus a d6 randomiser where GM sets the odds based on that knowledge; and IMO that's often a good approach to various aspects of RPGs.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541And this is why shoehorning games into categories like 'storygame' is a frustrating and meaningless pastime. It's the worst kind of word in that it seems to mean something when it actually doesn't, which is why most of the semantic wars over it are about establishing tribal lines rather than facilitating clear communication.

I stated my opinion of what each category meant, why the boundaries are blurred and that the definition is just a center. And why the exercise is worth

You in contrast just throwing up your hands and say it just all meaningless and it all tribal.

Books on chess, chess strategy, and running chess tournament is have little use for running a tabletop roleplaying campaign. There may be one or two nuggets of useful information, but one has to wade to through a lot of irrelevant details. On contrast a work specifically written for tabletop roleplaying where the focus on playing a character interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee are far more useful. Between the two poles there is a spectrum where a work on gaming becomes more or less useful to running a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

My contention that works on running a campaign where on collaboratively builds narrative or story are not as useful to running a campaign where players interact with a setting as their character with their actions with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541You mean like Races, Classes, Spells, and Feats?

You mean Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Dragonborn, Human, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Half-Elf, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Warlock, and Sorcerer versus Human, Sorcerer?

Of course reducing everything to Stamina, Will, Lore with a dice pool mechanics that produces an abstract degree of success is much more flexible and clear than OD&D default of having the players describe to the referee what they are attempting and the referee looking at one or more the player's character six score to decide on what the result going to be.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541Sorcerer is less focused and constrained than D&D.

So the core rules support my choice for my character to become a pirate on the high seas and ignore all the demon summoning which is clearly a loser's game considering the cost to one's humanity?

Of course the fore mention system of defining character through Stamina, Will, and Lore coupled with the dice pool system could be adapted to anything. But wait I could do that with six ability score and a d20 roll high system versus a target number as well?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541Then the designer failed, as mechanics are supposed to help the game be about what it's supposed to be about.

In tabletop roleplaying game the mechanics supposed to reflect the reality of the setting or genre the game targets. Since we are talking about entire worlds the designer has to pick and choose what elements to detail so there is that. One may opt to have detailed mechanics for social interaciton and abstract combat while another opts for the reverse. In either case it the mechanics need to reflect some elements of the genre or setting. With genre the setting is still there but in far more generic sense. Which make it a genre in the first place.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541Ditch that and you might as well just be flipping a coin.

You mean like rolling a dice pool and creatively interpreting what the degree of success means?

Humor aside, I think one should go with the level of abstraction that works for them. Clearly how Edwards designed Sorcerer resonates with you and if you had a bunch of fun campaigns with it more power to you. But how Sorcerer abstract things is neither a virtue nor a sin. My criticism of Sorcerer is that it only used to present a setting where player play characters summoning demons.  A very narrow scenario, that demon invariably cost the character their humanity. That if one does something else to escape the referee is left with very little to go on and has some work to do.

In contrast Call of Cthulu it opted to use Basic Roleplaying and kept all the other elements of that system even though it didn't directly relate to its primary focus on the Mythos. It is far less work for the referee to continue the campaign if the player decide his character doesn't want to bat shit crazy from all the weird and horrible things they been dealing with and return to a more straightforward life as a Chicago gangster or a G-Man.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541And if those mechanics had enabled players to dramatically edit scenes then the exploration aspect would have suffered, regardless of the intended focus.

You mean like deciding that perhaps 10,000 gp is enough. That risking life and limb in dark forest and underground labyrinth is not worth the risk. Then opening a potion shop in City State and have the campaign continued from there. I done that several time in various Majestic Wilderlands. One campaign had a phase where the focus was on building a crossroad inn and then afterwards keeping it prosperous and their customers hale and healthy.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541You mean they don't want to deal with meaningful choices and dilemmas, which are what Demons are a metaphor for?

I was handling it much the same way back in high school in the early 80s using AD&D. Players learned to stop messing around with demons. As their aid nearly always managed to twist their plans into a morally repugnant outcome. Except I lived in the middle of a rural area and certainly didn't write as well as Edwards.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541No, it ditches all the extraneous shit and distills the most meaningful elements. You're getting caught up on a literal interpretation of Demons and Sorcerers which never even existed in the original text.

So I put my google fu to work and found the apprentice version of Sorcerer here on the Internet Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20020126111700/http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com:80/apprent.pdf). Which was a free download circa early 2000s.

https://web.archive.org/web/19990502221103/http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com:80/

From the first paragraph

QuoteIn this roleplaying game, each player creates and runs a powerful sorcerer in the modern-day world. Each character (PC) comes equipped with at least one demon he or she has bound and at any time may try to summon and bind more demons.

Seem pretty clear cut to me.

Was not able to find the mid 90s version that was posted for free. Probably buried somewhere on usenet. The stat system, the dice pool mechanism, can be used for other genres and setting or even gasp as the basis for a RPG with a broader focus. But in the case of Sorcerer it was used to present a narrow premise.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053541Both Sorcerer and Dogs have a wider range of outcomes than D&D, which again is highly constrained.

I got 15 years of running (5 in the 80s and 10 from 2008) of running the Majestic Wilderlands using AD&D and OD&D that says otherwise.

Quote from: S'mon;1053577Sometimes having mechanics for something gets in the way of that thing. Eg in-person character interaction where you talk as your character may be harmed by having social interaction mechanics.

I'd say that's only true when the "thing" in question is not the main goal of the game. Like, if you cut combat and exploration rules out of D&D, you may as well play Lets pretend. On the other hand cutting out things like skill proficiencies/social mechanics/"Inspiration"etc. would be acceptable, because those are peripheral to the game's main themes.

Makes sense?

Quote from: Anon AdderlanAnd this is why shoehorning games into categories like 'storygame' is a frustrating and meaningless pastime. It's the worst kind of word in that it seems to mean something when it actually doesn't, which is why most of the semantic wars over it are about establishing tribal lines rather than facilitating clear communication.

Spot on. May I have this in my sig? :)

Quote from: Itachi;1053602I'd say that's only true when the "thing" in question is not the main goal of the game. Like, if you cut combat and exploration rules out of D&D, you may as well play Lets pretend. On the other hand cutting out things like skill proficiencies/social mechanics/"Inspiration"etc. would be acceptable, because those are peripheral to the game's main themes.

Makes sense?

If you cut out the exploration and combat rules of D&D, combat is still possible. In tabletop what characters can do is not defined by the rules but by the setting. The players can still choose to fight and rightfully ask the referee "What happens next." whether there are any formal rules for combat or not.

And it not as arbitrary as Let's Pretend either by your own example character level, attributes, and skills are still present to use as a foundation for a ruling.

I said in other threads on this site and elsewhere is that it hard to damage RPG so badly that a referee can't use it to handle what a players wants to do as his character within a setting. Even Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorcerer ultimately fails to do this because the fundamental interplay of players interacting with a setting as their characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee is still preserved. Anything a character can do within the setting of Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorcerer is fair game despite the lack of rules both games have to anything outside of their narrow scope.

By omitting so much, Edwards makes it so much easier for a campaign to focus on roleplaying Dogs dealing with moral issues in the old west, or sorcerers struggling to retain their humanity while dealing with demons that hobbyist playing those RPGs wind focusing on what Edwards wants them to focus on.

Quote from: Itachi;1053602I'd say that's only true when the "thing" in question is not the main goal of the game. Like, if you cut combat and exploration rules out of D&D, you may as well play Lets pretend. On the other hand cutting out things like skill proficiencies/social mechanics/"Inspiration"etc. would be acceptable, because those are peripheral to the game's main themes.

Makes sense?

I don't agree, and I think the idea that you need rules for the main focus of a game is a Forgeist fallacy. A Braunstein type social LARP game might focus on social interaction & diplomacy, but only have mechanics for off-stage stuff like the results of mass battles, and peripheral stuff like one character trying to kill another. In these sorts of games the mechanics are used to quickly and easily resolve peripheral elements to allow focus on the important stuff.

Quote from: estar;1053617If you cut out the exploration and combat rules of D&D, combat is still possible. In tabletop what characters can do is not defined by the rules but by the setting. The players can still choose to fight and rightfully ask the referee "What happens next." whether there are any formal rules for combat or not.

And it not as arbitrary as Let's Pretend either by your own example character level, attributes, and skills are still present to use as a foundation for a ruling.

I said in other threads on this site and elsewhere is that it hard to damage RPG so badly that a referee can't use it to handle what a players wants to do as his character within a setting. Even Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorcerer ultimately fails to do this because the fundamental interplay of players interacting with a setting as their characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee is still preserved. Anything a character can do within the setting of Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorcerer is fair game despite the lack of rules both games have to anything outside of their narrow scope.

By omitting so much, Edwards makes it so much easier for a campaign to focus on roleplaying Dogs dealing with moral issues in the old west, or sorcerers struggling to retain their humanity while dealing with demons that hobbyist playing those RPGs wind focusing on what Edwards wants them to focus on.

One thing to set the record straight... Dogs in the Vinyard is by Vincent Baker not Ron Edwards...
 
And yes, both of those games allow the player to have their character do anything that makes sense in the setting (and some things that may be on the edge of making sense). In DitV (the only one of the two that I've actually played), those things will just happen unless they drive into a conflict with another character in the game. Or they won't happen because they genuinely don't make sense ("I fly back home to Denver" won't fly in DitV...).

I see over on Story Games there is an attempt to make a definition for Story Game that starts to sound less like an RPG that either Sorceror of Dogs in the Vinyard, I have no exposure to the games that may be claimed under that definition, so it's hard for me to make much comment.

Frank

Quote from: S'mon;1053622I don't agree, and I think the idea that you need rules for the main focus of a game is a Forgeist fallacy. A Braunstein type social LARP game might focus on social interaction & diplomacy, but only have mechanics for off-stage stuff like the results of mass battles, and peripheral stuff like one character trying to kill another. In these sorts of games the mechanics are used to quickly and easily resolve peripheral elements to allow focus on the important stuff.

Vincent Baker actually talked some about the Fruitful Void. I wish he had expanded more on that concept, but the idea was that there were important bits of the game that were NOT directly covered by the mechanics, that there was something in between the mechanics. I think that concept might be relevant in understanding how D&D moved from a wargame to an RPG.

I also wonder if some of the resistance to "Story Games" comes from games trying to put that which makes a game an RPG to a given person into mechanics in a way that moves that "thing" out of the Fruitful Void?

Frank

Quote from: S'mon;1053622I don't agree, and I think the idea that you need rules for the main focus of a game is a Forgeist fallacy. A Braunstein type social LARP game might focus on social interaction & diplomacy, but only have mechanics for off-stage stuff like the results of mass battles, and peripheral stuff like one character trying to kill another. In these sorts of games the mechanics are used to quickly and easily resolve peripheral elements to allow focus on the important stuff.

Quote from: ffilz;1053627Vincent Baker actually talked some about the Fruitful Void. I wish he had expanded more on that concept, but the idea was that there were important bits of the game that were NOT directly covered by the mechanics, that there was something in between the mechanics. I think that concept might be relevant in understanding how D&D moved from a wargame to an RPG.

I also wonder if some of the resistance to "Story Games" comes from games trying to put that which makes a game an RPG to a given person into mechanics in a way that moves that "thing" out of the Fruitful Void?

I agree with S'mon - though to be fair to the Forge, the idea predates The Forge. I saw in many pre-Forge discussions that people think that if a game has 50 pages of combat mechanics and 1 about diplomacy, it is most about combat.

Here is Baker's 2005 thread about the "Fruitful Void", for what it's worth -

http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/119

At the time, my first comment was:

QuoteI agree strongly with the sentiment.  Too often, I've seen people suggest that a game's meaning is about whatever is most obvious on the surface--and advise the same.  i.e. Want a game about faith?  Give PCs a "Faith" stat.  And so forth.  I think this sort of literalism is damaging to creation of new games as well as to understanding of old games.

This fruitful void stuff is interesting and related to what I was talking about, but not exactly the same (I think). They make the point I think that if your game has a Sanity or Honour stat then the game is not about sanity, it's about other stuff which may degrade or affect Sanity or Honour, use them as resources etc. But the focus of the game can't really be on questions of sanity or honour - or Humanity or Virtue etc. So games like Call of Cthulu, D&D Oriental Adventures, Vampire etc must be about something else, such as investigation, exploration, dungeon crawling, combat et al. You are more likely to see a Combat score for characters in a game about courtly intrigue than in a game about combat. A game *really* about combat may end up looking like a first person shooter computer game, or those old dueling flipbook things, where it's all about player ability. The more mechanics for combat resolution get added, the less about combat it actually is.

Likewise when a game has a score for Diplomacy Bonus (3e D&D) or Assassination % (1e AD&D), I think it's giving a strong signal that it is not about diplomacy or assassination.

@S'mon you have a point. I haven't thought by this angle.

Though reading that "Fruitful Void" article (thanks Ffilz), it seems that usually this "Void" emerges from, and is linked to, the ecology of rules around. The example of Dogs in the Vineyard is spot on here: the game doesn't have a Faith score, but it's all about Faith (or, how far do you go for your faith) as promoted by the other rules. Same with Monopoly, where you don't have a Business Acumen stat, but the game is all about quickly managing business-like situations (thus Business Acumen). And in regard specifically to RPGs, this is even more pronounced. I can't think of a tabletop RPG that doesn't have rules (procedural or directive) for what it's about: D&D always had rules for combat and survival in perilous places; Call of Cthulhu has very explicit rules for investigation with sanity at stake; Shadowrun has rules for criminal heists; Apocalypse World has rules for scarcity and harshness; etc.

So, S'mon, are you sure this Braunstein LARP you speak of doesn't have any rules for warfare/skirmishes, be it procedural (dice, stats, etc) or directive (verbal instructions, etc)? Because if my reading of this Fruitful Void concept is more or less correct (frankly, not even the authors seem to have a precise definition :D ), this "Void" is totally linked to these rules, and not completely dissociated from it as you seem to advocate. OBS: I'm not saying it should, though. Perhaps there may be games where this Void is really dissociated from everything else and it still works.

Quote from: FfilzI also wonder if some of the resistance to "Story Games" comes from games trying to put that which makes a game an RPG to a given person into mechanics in a way that moves that "thing" out of the Fruitful Void?

Seems pretty much the case, to me.



EDIT: that article is kinda confusing BTW. Vincent Baker seems to understand this Fuitful Void as something central to play, while Ron Edwards seems to understand it as something not really central to play, but relevant in some way.

My reaction after reading the thread about the "fruitful void" is "Why is this such a revelation?" When your campaign start off with a premise that is going to be about playing a character within a specific setting this is what follows irregardless of what rules you wrote or thought you needed.

A tabletop roleplaying campaign that didn't have any rules about a butcher shop but has a butcher shop as an important part of the setting is still going to deal with life within a butcher shop.  Despite the lack of rules it could be for a given campaign a butcher shop would be one of the more important setting elements because of the choices of the referee or players.

An example from OD&D, a character can jump across things even though there are no explicit rules for jumping either for or against.

Whether the rules cover it or not jumping or butcher shops are important (or not) by virtue of the referee or players making it important through how the setting develops or player's choices as their characters.

Quote from: ffilz;1053626One thing to set the record straight... Dogs in the Vinyard is by Vincent Baker not Ron Edwards...
 

Yup messed that one up should have known better.

Thanks for the Fruitful Void link Ffilz

Quote from: Itachi;1053648I can't think of a tabletop RPG that doesn't have rules (procedural or directive) for what it's about: D&D always had rules for combat and survival in perilous places

I want to take D&D as the example since it's what I know best.

I would say the original focus of D&D was exploration and discovery. A big part of it was interacting with the dungeon environment. And the more they add rules for Spot/Perception/Investigation type rolls, the *less* it is about that. Old School Play advocates like Matt Finch talk a lot about the need to twiddle with wall sconces and otherwise have your PC interact with detailed elements of the physical environment *without mechanical support* (or at best you might get a 1 in 6 freebie, 2 in 6 for elves) where a new school player would just roll vs Spot etc.

I definitely think there is a tendency for players to focus on what is mechanically detailed, eg combat, which in low level OD&D is basically a failure state. Future generations of designers may think this is what the game is supposed to be about, eg 4e D&D. But I'd argue that D&D was originally more about exploration than anything else - there are more rules for combat, but there is more description & advice on exploration.

Quote from: S'mon;1053657I want to take D&D as the example since it's what I know best.

I would say the original focus of D&D was exploration and discovery. A big part of it was interacting with the dungeon environment. And the more they add rules for Spot/Perception/Investigation type rolls, the *less* it is about that. Old School Play advocates like Matt Finch talk a lot about the need to twiddle with wall sconces and otherwise have your PC interact with detailed elements of the physical environment *without mechanical support* (or at best you might get a 1 in 6 freebie, 2 in 6 for elves) where a new school player would just roll vs Spot etc.

I definitely think there is a tendency for players to focus on what is mechanically detailed, eg combat, which in low level OD&D is basically a failure state. Future generations of designers may think this is what the game is supposed to be about, eg 4e D&D. But I'd argue that D&D was originally more about exploration than anything else - there are more rules for combat, but there is more description & advice on exploration.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Quote from: Itachi;1053648EDIT: that article is kinda confusing BTW. Vincent Baker seems to understand this Fuitful Void as something central to play, while Ron Edwards seems to understand it as something not really central to play, but relevant in some way.

I think the idea is that with the FV you have rules around The Thing, but not rules directly covering The Thing. Eg if the game is about combat & killing things you don't want to have a Killing Things stat. If the game is about seduction you don't want to have a Seduction stat. Same for Diplomacy, Assassination, Farming etc. You have attributes for the legs that support The Thing. A game about questions of honour in Samurai Japan should not have an Honour stat. A game about dungeon delving & killing monsters/looting stuff as a Samurai in Samurai Japan may well have an Honour stat.

Quote from: Itachi;1053658Makes sense. Thanks.

Cheers :)

Quote from: estar;1053656My reaction after reading the thread about the "fruitful void" is "Why is this such a revelation?"

Because most people coming up with rpg theory and writing games spend a lot of time thinking about games, and very little playing them. I mentioned it before: on Free RPG Day I had a player who'd not played anything for more than 20 years. One of the games given away was his, Sol (http://atgn.com.au/soltabletoprpgreview/) (that's a review, his actual game site is defunct). A pleasant guy, an okay player, but... he'd written a game after 20+ years of not playing, and the game was of course completely unplaytested even by him. And it shows, badly.

Things which any experienced player or GM will take as self-evident will be great revelations to people who don't game.

Of course, if you're gaming all the time then you might be too busy to come up with a game theory or write an rpg.

Quote from: S'mon;1053657I want to take D&D as the example since it's what I know best.

I would say the original focus of D&D was exploration and discovery. A big part of it was interacting with the dungeon environment. And the more they add rules for Spot/Perception/Investigation type rolls, the *less* it is about that. Old School Play advocates like Matt Finch talk a lot about the need to twiddle with wall sconces and otherwise have your PC interact with detailed elements of the physical environment *without mechanical support* (or at best you might get a 1 in 6 freebie, 2 in 6 for elves) where a new school player would just roll vs Spot etc.

I definitely think there is a tendency for players to focus on what is mechanically detailed, eg combat, which in low level OD&D is basically a failure state. Future generations of designers may think this is what the game is supposed to be about, eg 4e D&D. But I'd argue that D&D was originally more about exploration than anything else - there are more rules for combat, but there is more description & advice on exploration.

Drawing sweeping universal conclusions about what original D&Ds focus was is something of a fool's errand. Perhaps for you it was exploration and discovery, but I knew plenty of players who thought it was all about fighting monsters (and didn't give a rat's rear end that some players thought this was a "fail state"... there definition of success was having fun, not maximizing XP gain).

I also think the lack of rules in early D&Ds case was more a matter of emergent game play than any sort of deliberate "fruitful void." D&D evolved out of a war game and its earliest iterations were essentially adding heroes, magic and monsters to the war game, then focusing it down onto the exploits of one or two characters.

Its original focus was thus combat. The absence of built-in mechanical support for interacting with wall sconces and such wasn't because they wanted the players to spend half an hour describing how they search a room; it was because they hadn't come up with any sort of unified approach as the game shifted from a war game to a delve environment and from essentially PVP to cooperative play. Later editions added rules to these niches so that more consistent games could be had.

In other words, I think the "fruitful void" is more in the eye of the beholder than something deliberately intended in the rules. I mean, I could add all sorts of elements into a game of Monopoly that might make sense (ex. hiring mafia types to burn down another player's hotels) and claim I'm exploiting the fruitful void of Monopoly, but most people would just say I'm adding a bunch of ad hoc rulings to a game that was never intended to cover that aspect.

Quote from: S'mon;1053657I would say the original focus of D&D was exploration and discovery.

I would ask players from Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign why did the Blackmoor Dungeons proved so popular compared to what you were doing prior as your character?

Because unlike Gygax's Greyhawk campaign, Blackmoor started as a Braustein like medieval wargame campaign between the good guys and the bad guys. Then the Blackmoor Dungeons got introduced and like a blob engulfed the interests of the players participating in the campaign.

It got so dominant that in a moment of inflexibility, Dave banished the good guys to Lake Gloomy because they focusing so much on the Blackmoor Dungeon that they ignored threat of the bad guys who managed to take over Blackmoor. Of course once they got there the first thing they started doing is searching for more dungeons to explore.

Gygax's Greyhawk campaign that led to D&D is not a good example to figure this kind of answer out. He started right off with a dungeon (Castle Greyhawk) based on talking with Dave Arneson and his experience with exploring the Blackmoor Dungeon himself when Dave came down and ran a session.

And while Gygax may have written much of D&D in the context of exploring the Greyhawk Dungeon. Tabletop roleplaying grew out of a more expansive environment in a hobbyist culture that also featured varieties of miniature wargames campaign. Which is why we got naval combat rules, wilderness rules, etc in OD&D.

From reading the literature and various anecdotes, my conclusion is that the Blackmoor campaign stated as a wargame campaign that had the innovation of players explicitly playing individual characters  rather than a nebulous general. The early sessions seems to have been groups of players competing for treasure and fighting it out among each other but otherwise playing a sophisticated wargame campaign.

That the transition to a full blown tabletop roleplaying campaign occurred during the introduction of the Blackmoor Dungeon. For the first time individual goals became paramount rather than strategic goals. Among them an intense desire to explore one more room, one more level to see what there.

Quote from: Chris24601;1053665Drawing sweeping universal conclusions about what original D&Ds focus was is something of a fool's errand. Perhaps for you it was exploration and discovery, but I knew plenty of players who thought it was all about fighting monsters...

My first D&D was 1e with Unearthed Arcana and I was 12, so yes the emphasis was definitely on fighting monsters!
But that's not really a valid play mode if you play OD&D as written. You have ca 1-6 hit points, and the first hit will probably kill you dead.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Because most people coming up with rpg theory and writing games spend a lot of time thinking about games, and very little playing them. I mentioned it before: on Free RPG Day I had a player who'd not played anything for more than 20 years. One of the games given away was his, Sol (http://atgn.com.au/soltabletoprpgreview/) (that's a review, his actual game site is defunct). A pleasant guy, an okay player, but... he'd written a game after 20+ years of not playing, and the game was of course completely unplaytested even by him. And it shows, badly.

Things which any experienced player or GM will take as self-evident will be great revelations to people who don't game.

Of course, if you're gaming all the time then you might be too busy to come up with a game theory or write an rpg.

I know Vincent Baker games a lot... The whole family games (and designs games, and plays the games they are designing). Sounds like a really cool family to be a part of.

Ron Edwards also stressed understanding RPG theory through actual play. One of the great struggles at the Forge was the arm chair gamers who wanted to talk theory but didn't actually play.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1053678I know Vincent Baker games a lot... The whole family games (and designs games, and plays the games they are designing). Sounds like a really cool family to be a part of.

Ron Edwards also stressed understanding RPG theory through actual play. One of the great struggles at the Forge was the arm chair gamers who wanted to talk theory but didn't actually play.

Frank

I watched a really cool interview with John Harper (Blades in the Dark) and the Index Card RPG guy. John mentioned that you need to play games, especially your own, if you're creating a game, constantly iterating. Why this would need to be said is beyond me.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1053679I watched a really cool interview with John Harper (Blades in the Dark) and the Index Card RPG guy. John mentioned that you need to play games, especially your own, if you're creating a game, constantly iterating. Why this would need to be said is beyond me.

Because there are folks who are desperate to be popular who can't manage to actually get together with folks who play. So they try an design a game in a vacuum thinking they will create the next great thing and become instantly popular... Ok, maybe not quite so pathetic as that, but I think armchair designers are extraordinarily motivated by what they see wrong in whatever game play they have done.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1053680Because there are folks who are desperate to be popular who can't manage to actually get together with folks who play. So they try an design a game in a vacuum thinking they will create the next great thing and become instantly popular... Ok, maybe not quite so pathetic as that, but I think armchair designers are extraordinarily motivated by what they see wrong in whatever game play they have done.

Frank

Probably very true and made much worse when your "game" becomes a vector for whatever activist disease you're infected with.

Quote from: ffilz;1053678I know Vincent Baker games a lot... The whole family games (and designs games, and plays the games they are designing). Sounds like a really cool family to be a part of.

Ron Edwards also stressed understanding RPG theory through actual play. One of the great struggles at the Forge was the arm chair gamers who wanted to talk theory but didn't actually play.

Frank

That goes all the way back to rec.games.frp.advocacy, with arguments there that have to be 25 years old by now.  I always got the feeling people most involved in the theory arguments played the least.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Things which any experienced player or GM will take as self-evident will be great revelations to people who don't game.

Of course, if you're gaming all the time then you might be too busy to come up with a game theory or write an rpg.

Could you repeat this a bit louder for the chuckleheads in the back, please?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Things which any experienced player or GM will take as self-evident will be great revelations to people who don't game.

Of course, if you're gaming all the time then you might be too busy to come up with a game theory or write an rpg.

There are definitely inexperienced people who try to make RPGs.

Conversely, though, people's real experiences in play can be extremely different. There are people who play the same game, but they will say very different things about what works and what doesn't. i.e. One person says "If you play RPG X, then blah is self-evident." -- while another person will say "If you play RPG X, then blah doesn't work at all." They both really do play the game, but they play it with different styles and assumptions.

Quote from: ffilz;1053680Because there are folks who are desperate to be popular who can't manage to actually get together with folks who play. So they try an design a game in a vacuum thinking they will create the next great thing and become instantly popular... Ok, maybe not quite so pathetic as that, but I think armchair designers are extraordinarily motivated by what they see wrong in whatever game play they have done.

Frank

I think it's probably simpler than that.

I suspect there aren't many people who design games who don't actually game at all - but probably there are a lot who don't actually game that much.  Certainly not enough for what they're trying to do.

Too design something well - you need a lot of input.  To play test a game it's not sufficient to play one campaign with a group of buddies you've been gaming with for twenties years and who you share a lot of unstated assumptions with.

Quote from: Panjumanju;1053431I find people in the hobby use the word "storygame" a lot like some people use the word "hipster". It's simultaneously a vague, sometimes contradictory, derogatory statement, and held up by some as a banner of newness, media-challenging, and progressive notions. It serves a social purpose and muddies, rather than clarifies, classification.

//Panjumanju

Exactly. That's what Tweet is doing here. He's not being accurate.

Quote from: ffilz;1053491Could you link to the specific definitions from there that you are using? I've participated on both the Forge and Story Games forums and have never felt like they had definitions that said an RPG is that, but our (story) games are this.

Read Ron Edwards' essays on narrativism.

Quote from: ffilz;1053492Does a narrow focus of the game make it a Story Game rather than an RPG?

No. In theory, you could set an RPG in a single town in 1965 North Carolina. It would be unusual but you could. It would be an RPG so long as the emphasis was on playing and immersing in living characters in that living world.

Likewise, a storygame could be set in a vast world, but that world would only be a backdrop for the creating of stories.

QuoteIs EPT less of an RPG than D&D because it has a specific setting?

Obviously not.

An actual game design discussion! How I've missed these.

Quote from: S'mon;1053577Sometimes having mechanics for something gets in the way of that thing.

Absolutely!

For example, Blades in the Dark makes planning and resource management impossible to even engage with because of how it abstracts them away with mechanics. So if that's the kind of fun you're after you're screwed.

Quote from: estar;1053587I stated my opinion of what each category meant, why the boundaries are blurred and that the definition is just a center.

You decided to encumber 'storygame' to mean games with limited scope instead of just talking about the concept of limited scope and how that affects games. What exactly does that get us?

Quote from: estar;1053587And why the exercise is worth

On the contrary, you demonstrated why it isn't.

Quote from: estar;1053587Books on chess, chess strategy, and running chess tournament is have little use for running a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

Yes. And?

Quote from: estar;1053587My contention that works on running a campaign where on collaboratively builds narrative or story are not as useful to running a campaign where players interact with a setting as their character with their actions with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

It's the difference between declaring the truth and discovering it. It's the most viable foundation for defining 'storygame' I've found, yet I still find it far more productive to discuss those concepts directly rather than muck about with the definition of 'storygame' yet again.

Quote from: estar;1053587You mean Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Dragonborn, Human, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Half-Elf, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Barbarian, Bard, Warlock, and Sorcerer versus Human, Sorcerer?

Again, you're taking things way too literally, and the limits you suggest do not exist.

Quote from: estar;1053587So the core rules support my choice for my character to become a pirate on the high seas and ignore all the demon summoning which is clearly a loser's game considering the cost to one's humanity?

Depends on exactly how your chosen game supports that choice. Because 7th Sea 2e was specifically designed for it, yet many feel it fails to meet that need.

Quote from: estar;1053587Of course the fore mention system of defining character through Stamina, Will, and Lore coupled with the dice pool system could be adapted to anything. But wait I could do that with six ability score and a d20 roll high system versus a target number as well?

The d20 glut demonstrated that adapting such a ruleset to everything was far more difficult than initially assumed.

Quote from: estar;1053587In tabletop roleplaying game the mechanics supposed to reflect the reality of the setting or genre the game targets. Since we are talking about entire worlds the designer has to pick and choose what elements to detail so there is that. One may opt to have detailed mechanics for social interaciton and abstract combat while another opts for the reverse. In either case it the mechanics need to reflect some elements of the genre or setting. With genre the setting is still there but in far more generic sense. Which make it a genre in the first place.

No argument there.

Quote from: estar;1053587You mean like rolling a dice pool and creatively interpreting what the degree of success means?

To a great extent, yes!

To bring it back to OTE, the resolution system tells you if something good or bad happens, but doesn't help you decide what that may be. In other words, it demands creativity without inspiring it. So if the situation itself isn't providing that inspiration you're being pulled out of the moment to try and figure out what makes sense just because the dice told you to.

Quote from: estar;1053587My criticism of Sorcerer is that it only used to present a setting where player play characters summoning demons.  A very narrow scenario, that demon invariably cost the character their humanity. That if one does something else to escape the referee is left with very little to go on and has some work to do.

Again you're missing the allegory. Demons are a source of power which presents dilemmas, and Sorcerers are the people dealing with said power.

Quote from: estar;1053587In contrast Call of Cthulu it opted to use Basic Roleplaying and kept all the other elements of that system even though it didn't directly relate to its primary focus on the Mythos. It is far less work for the referee to continue the campaign if the player decide his character doesn't want to bat shit crazy from all the weird and horrible things they been dealing with and return to a more straightforward life as a Chicago gangster or a G-Man.

Funny you mention that, as Sorcerer is also better at running Call of Cthulhu than BRP. Just define Humanity as Sanity, come up with a Kicker which gives you a reason to move forward, and off you go. And just as little gets in the way of your character returning to the life of a Chicago gangster or a G-Man.

Quote from: estar;1053587I got 15 years of running (5 in the 80s and 10 from 2008) of running the Majestic Wilderlands using AD&D and OD&D that says otherwise.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate how D&D is less limited than Sorcerer, which you still haven't done. Because adapting d20 to different genres required substantial changes to the system. Adapting Sorcerer on the other hand only required changing the names.

Quote from: ffilz;1053626I see over on Story Games there is an attempt to make a definition for Story Game that starts to sound less like an RPG that either Sorceror of Dogs in the Vinyard, I have no exposure to the games that may be claimed under that definition, so it's hard for me to make much comment.

I do have that exposure, and it's still hard for me to make much comment...

...not the least of which because I'm banned :p

Quote from: ffilz;1053627Vincent Baker actually talked some about the Fruitful Void. I wish he had expanded more on that concept, but the idea was that there were important bits of the game that were NOT directly covered by the mechanics, that there was something in between the mechanics. I think that concept might be relevant in understanding how D&D moved from a wargame to an RPG.

Important elements may not be covered by the mechanics, but they're always a consequence of them. For example there are no rules for bluffing in Poker, yet it's a natural outcome of following the rules as designed.

RPGs are all about the behavior they lead to at the table. So you can have rules which demand you act a certain way, or rules which inspire you to act a certain way, the latter of which is always preferable as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Itachi;1053602May I have this in my sig? :)

Um, sure.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1053664Because most people coming up with rpg theory and writing games spend a lot of time thinking about games, and very little playing them.

What games exactly fall in this category (badly playtested/lacking actual play experience) in your experience, from the authors in question (Baker, Edwards, etc)?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755Again, you're taking things way too literally, and the limits you suggest do not exist.

I read the same book, it talks about sorcerers, demons, and elements of a narrow fantasy genre involving sorcerers dealing with demons in the modern era.

But I see where you are going with with the following replies

Quote from: robertsconleyYou mean like rolling a dice pool and creatively interpreting what the degree of success means?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755To a great extent, yes!

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755To bring it back to OTE, the resolution system tells you if something good or bad happens, but doesn't help you decide what that may be. In other words, it demands creativity without inspiring it. So if the situation itself isn't providing that inspiration you're being pulled out of the moment to try and figure out what makes sense just because the dice told you to.

Great so rolling a dice pool that generates degrees of successing (along with other specific nuances) resonates with how you think about how to adjudicate what characters do as their characters in a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

However the printed book in which this is contained only discusses using the above in the context of a setting that has sorcerers dealing with demons in the modern world.

Whereas OD&D touches on a variety of elements that encompass much of a fantasy medieval setting. Wilderness, dungeons, exploration, magical research, Mars, managing armies, handling people reactions, naval combat, aerial combat, fantasy races, different character types, monsters, etc.

Are you going to continue to tell me that Sorcerer as a RPG is somehow more expansive than OD&D?

Or rather you want to shift the argument over which set of mechanics is naturally more flexible in handling a variety of tabletop roleplaying campaigns? Which is not my original point but I can go there as well.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755You decided to encumber 'storygame' to mean games with limited scope instead of just talking about the concept of limited scope and how that affects games. What exactly does that get us?

That is apparently something that some game designers do as a technique. Since we like to talk about how games are designed it gets brought it. Which is why I started talking about it.

Whether it define storygames? I think use of metagame mechanics i.e. mechanics that you use as a player not as your character is far more popular and far more common than using a narrow scope.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1053755The d20 glut demonstrated that adapting such a ruleset to everything was far more difficult than initially assumed.

I guess you are right there was a lot of difficultly in adapting 5355 products to the limitations of rolling 1d20 roll high with six attribute.

https://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0

Odd that more than a few still persist today with significant groups of hobbyists still playing them given such a severe handicap.

Quote from: estar;1053789I guess you are right there was a lot of difficultly in adapting 5355 products to the limitations of rolling 1d20 roll high with six attribute.

https://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0

Odd that more than a few still persist today with significant groups of hobbyists still playing them given such a severe handicap.

Why are you even bothering to engage him/her/anongender?

Quote from: estar;1053789I guess you are right there was a lot of difficultly in adapting 5355 products to the limitations of rolling 1d20 roll high with six attribute.

https://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0

Odd that more than a few still persist today with significant groups of hobbyists still playing them given such a severe handicap.

I understand he meant adapting in a successful way, no? See Engel d20.

Quote from: Itachi;1053886I understand he meant adapting in a successful way, no? See Engel d20.

(shrug) Define success? Success as one likes it? Success as in a number of hobbyist played it? I define success as having a diverse range of works with more authors writing, along with increasing the number of hobbyists playing. Given that of course not everything is going to be one's tastes and there will be some clunkers, some wild successes, and most muddling along in the middle.

Success as in being recognized as a well designed game or adaptation, through word of mouth, awards or sheer number of people who play them.

 D&D5, RQ6/Mythras, Beyond the Wall, Blades in the Dark, etc. fall in this category and are all louded by their well done designs.

On the other hand, Engel d20, Paladium system, Synnabar, Fatal, etc. are notorious by their bad design.

This kind of success.

Quote from: estar;1053897(shrug) Define success? Success as one likes it? Success as in a number of hobbyist played it? I define success as having a diverse range of works with more authors writing, along with increasing the number of hobbyists playing. Given that of course not everything is going to be one's tastes and there will be some clunkers, some wild successes, and most muddling along in the middle.

I agree with this. My favorite flavors of d20 have been horrible failures by market standards.

I could apply your definition to the English language too... LOL

Quote from: Itachi;1053905Success as in being recognized as a well designed game or adaptation, through word of mouth, awards or sheer number of people who play them.

 D&D5, RQ6/Mythras, Beyond the Wall, Blades in the Dark, etc. fall in this category and are all louded by their well done designs.

On the other hand, Engel d20, Paladium system, Synnabar, Fatal, etc. are notorious by their bad design.

This kind of success.

Don't confuse popularity with "good design". D&D is an outlier. The very name defines it's success - if only for a time (see 4e). But I have no doubt there are many people that play the various editions of D&D because that was their jam and they stuck to it.

The gravity-well of D&D in the RPG industry cannot be underestimated. That is the both the curse and the boon of those that try to design alternatives to it (specifically d20).

Yep, I agree. I would say considering all those indicators (awards, popularity, word of mouth, etc) and specially actual play experience may give someone a good idea on a given game quality/accomplishment of it's design goals.

Quote from: Itachi;1053905Success as in being recognized as a well designed game or adaptation, through word of mouth, awards or sheer number of people who play them.

All of which happened to D20 derived products.

Quote from: estar;1053916All of which happened to D20 derived products.

I'd avoid generalizing like that. Which products specifically were regarded as well designed or adapted? Im not a d20 player but what I hear is that what happened was a sort of bubble from midway forward on the engine lifecycle that ended up producing a fair share of lazily adapted or designed stances. I know I met some of it (again, see Engel d20).

Just to be clear: I brought up popularity as another indicator to be taken into consideration together with the other ones (awards, word of mouth, actual play tests, etc) not as the sole measurement of quality.

Quote from: Itachi;1053925Im not a d20 player but what I hear is that what happened was a sort of bubble from midway forward on the engine lifecycle that ended up producing a fair share of lazily adapted or designed stances.

Not exactly. The d20 glut was a feature of 3.0 2000-2003 and probably peaked in 2001, maybe 2002, while the edition ran 2000-2008. The release of 3.5 in 2003 really killed the bubble.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

It reminds me a bit of PbtA, an engine that I like, and which also saw a fair number of hacks that simply ape it's concepts without understanding them well, thus resulting in questionable implementations imo.

Quote from: Itachi;1053927It reminds me a bit of PbtA, an engine that I like, and which also saw a fair number of hacks that simply ape it's concepts without understanding them well, thus resulting in questionable implementations imo.

What's funny is that, at least in my opinion, Apocalypse World 2e somehow managed to fall into this category in spite of being written by the same dude as 1e. Sure, some of the changes were for the better, but a lot of them were just change for change's sake, and more than a few of the changes and additions(like the Battle Moves) seemed to totally miss what made 1e and its better adaptations so great in the first place.

Quote from: Itachi;1053925I'd avoid generalizing like that. Which products specifically were regarded as well designed or adapted?

Off of the top of my head, Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder spring to mind. I will see if I can come up with a list.

Quote from: Itachi;1053925Im not a d20 player but what I hear is that what happened was a sort of bubble from midway forward on the engine lifecycle that ended up producing a fair share of lazily adapted or designed stances. I know I met some of it (again, see Engel d20).

S'mon states the issue correctly. D20 based products were flooding the distribution channel and then somewhat unexpectedly Wizards announced D&D 3.5 and suddenly most were unsaleable. hence the d20 bust. The whole 3.5 thing left a sour taste in everybody's mouth and a strong trend towards Wizards only took hold in regards to the 3PP market.

Quote from: estar;1053950Off of the top of my head, Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder spring to mind. I will see if I can come up with a list.

Yes, only heard good things about these two. Does Star Wars Saga also counts?

Also, are there some less known adaptations that you like?

Quote from: GeekEclecticWhat's funny is that, at least in my opinion, Apocalypse World 2e somehow managed to fall into this category in spite of being written by the same dude as 1e. Sure, some of the changes were for the better, but a lot of them were just change for change's sake, and more than a few of the changes and additions(like the Battle Moves) seemed to totally miss what made 1e and its better adaptations so great in the first place.

I have to agree. The good changes are subtle (gigs for everybody, cleaning up fronts/threats, establishing personal goals for characters from the start, etc) while the bad ones seem more prevalent and completly against the spirit the same author established in 1e (I'm looking at you, Battle moves).

I think the best PbtA hacks thrive on the quality of their Moves (which is an obvious thing), and also the players dynamics it entices at the group (which is a not so obvious thing). It may even relate to the fruitful void thing we talked about earlier, where something may not be immediately recognizable by looking at rules, but when you sit down to play you totally see this hidden layer and... Oh! now everything makes sense! That's why the likes of Dungeon World doesn't resonate much with me while, say, Monsterhearts totally does.