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