I'm just curious what y'all would consider a "story game" or "story gaming". There seems to be no small amount of contempt for the concept among those in the OSR scene, but what qualifies?

Any game with a narrative is a Narrative or "Story Game". The games that market themselves as such can be better described as "Player Driver Rail-road, spotlight focus, Meta Narrative Control Games" or more simply put "Meta-Rollplay Games". As in these games you can do basically anything so long as you roll for it. Want to jump 3 stories? Alright you can, you may not actively jump 3 stories but there's a ladder right there and you can climb up and instantly catch up to the person you where chasing. You need to convince Bad Man Bill to become good? And you failed your roll? You can now spend a currency to reroll, get more dice, automatically succeed or argue with the GM for more dice. Also, the session is about whoever has the best stars for the current objective or is loudest at the table. Have fun.

Personally, I don't think all of these games are bad. I however think the vast majority are lazy. The idea of the One Page RPG or the Lite Narrative Game are all lazy. They are concepts that force the players or GM (normally both) to do all the heavy lifting as they try to be as "relax" as possible. Another thing I find is a trend amongst these games is how you basically have a 50/50 chance to succeed. Everything else is an outright failure or results in you not really getting what you want but making more problems for yourself. Which artificially prolongs the game. I played a game of Apocalypse World and our simple job of getting some lumber from a friendly if rival gang went from something that should have been a few rolls into a whole spiraling problem because we kept getting consequences.

Defenders of these games will cry "this isn't how it's meant to be played" when it's literally written this way. The GM can Ethier follow the rules or just throw them out at which point you may as well be playing something else. So myself, I have alot of beef with these games as they pretend to be new, flashy and accessible. But in reality they are incredibly flawed, require more structure and far more trust between players and the GM then your average game since the games encourage you to debate with the GM and go "fast and loose" with the almost none existent rules.

Tl;dr Narrative games rarely of ever actually provide mechanics that support stories. But instead provide mechanics that let you alter a story in anyway shape or form. Narrative games are deeply flawed and encourage bad behavior at the table or are lazily written putting more work on the players and GM.

For me, the top "story-game" anti-roleplaying elements are:
- Players narrating beyond declaring character action
- Metamechanics for players altering the game world
- Complications at player discretion instead of GM adjudication

In story gaming there is no rules, but rule of cool.  If a player wants to do something, they'll do it, they'll always be a success and they won't face failure.  In story gaming, entire sessions can be had with only a few social rolls while listening to walls of Grade D fan fiction from the players and DM concurrently.  There is no stakes in story gaming.  You will never know the rush of saving your party member's character you've gamed with for the last couple of months from being ate by a ghoul pack because the players never go down.  The concept of a map with a grid for movement is foreign because everything is "theater of the mind", which makes movement and tactics almost useless.  The game is no more a game, its more of a player validation scheme.

I dealt with a DM that pulled that crap once, absolutely horrible time was had by all at the table.  Three hours, no combat, ridiculously corny lines and then at the last 15 minutes of time a weak combat.  No concept of the three pillars or how to balance them.

Quote from: Wisithir on October 15, 2022, 01:01:13 AM
For me, the top "story-game" anti-roleplaying elements are:
- Players narrating beyond declaring character action
- Metamechanics for players altering the game world
- Complications at player discretion instead of GM adjudication

Yet both 13th Age and Savage Worlds allow players a degree of narration beyond their character action and/or spending metacurrency to declare alterations to the game world, and yet clearly fall on the RPG side of the divide. So the first two criteria are either wrong or need a function of degree to make distinctions between rpgs and storygames.

Story Game: Microscope. It has a framework of basic rules (types of scenes and taking turns) and you make up everything. The rules are about how to play (meta rules) and do not touch the game world.

Non-Story Game: AD&D 1e. I can't think of any meta-currencies or other rules aimed at making a good story. It's just a game with a story in the background or an emergent story that bubbles up from play. The rules touch the game world.

So the spectrum is:

Microscope <------------------------------------------------------------------> AD&D 1e

You get closer to Microscope when you have rules aimed at telling a good story. You get closer to AD&D 1e when you have rules aimed at modeling some version of reality. Of course, in many games you'll have a mix. So you also have to look at intent.

So my definition would be: A game aimed at telling a story with supporting rules that are independent of game world (meta rules).

There is a continuum between story and roleplaying games, but the defining difference is definitely the meta aspect. Any given game is pushed more in the direction of being a story-game, based on the extent to which the rules permit the player to control things outside of their character's actions.

Philisophically, a roleplaying game places it's focus on immersion. The goal is to let each player vicariously live the life of their PC, so the rules for players are all about what actions the PC can physically conduct within the game world. They usually eschew structured narratives in favor of randomness, under the logic that it represents a more believable simulation of a person's life. Story games focus instead on narrative, so they usually give the players rules which further that, such as the ability to influence the setting, retcon the continuity, control the NPCs, or break the standing game rules for narrative purposes (also known as the "rule of cool"). Basically an RPG mechanic is one that furthers the simulation of the PC within the game world, and a story-gaming mechanic is one that facilitates a structured or exciting narrative.

A lot of RPGs these days include what I would consider to be story-gaming mechanics, particularly fate/fortune points, but also rewards based on fulfilling character motivations or narrative goals, and even arguably D&D's inspiration mechanic. Moreover, the story-gaming mindset has been gaining ground in the RPG world. There's a million and one exceptions, but over the last 10 years or so, there's been a general trend away from random outcomes and sandbox play, and towards plotted campaigns and TV-show style story arcs. Arguably the trend shift in RPG design is explicable by designers responding to the shift in what players expect from a game. That's probably the part that most OSR players react so strongly against. 

Quote from: Wisithir on October 15, 2022, 01:01:13 AM
For me, the top "story-game" anti-roleplaying elements are:
- Players narrating beyond declaring character action

Out of curiosity, does that include describing character action? As in: if the player says "Throndor snarls with fury, as he leaps down the stairs and hacks at the goblin with his battleaxe", does that move it into story-gaming territory, or does he have to just say "I move and attack". 

In practice, there are a wide range of games that might or might not be story games, depending on one's criteria. On The Forge and at the Story Games forum, Burning Wheel was considered a story game in common with the others. It is a mechanically involved dice-pool game with lifepaths, but it also has mechanics for PC goals and motivations in experience.

Other questionable cases: the Amber Diceless RPG is one of Pundit's favorites, and has a lot of GM power, but also encourages player rivalry and competition. There are cinematic games like Toon, Torg, and Cinematic Unisystem (the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG and kin) - which give players metagame points to spend but also have a lot of focus on dice-rolling action. White Wolf's Storyteller is similar.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 15, 2022, 12:12:01 PM
Story Game: Microscope. It has a framework of basic rules (types of scenes and taking turns) and you make up everything. The rules are about how to play (meta rules) and do not touch the game world.

Non-Story Game: AD&D 1e. I can't think of any meta-currencies or other rules aimed at making a good story. It's just a game with a story in the background or an emergent story that bubbles up from play. The rules touch the game world.

So the spectrum is:

Microscope <------------------------------------------------------------------> AD&D 1e

You get closer to Microscope when you have rules aimed at telling a good story. You get closer to AD&D 1e when you have rules aimed at modeling some version of reality. Of course, in many games you'll have a mix. So you also have to look at intent.

So my definition would be: A game aimed at telling a story with supporting rules that are independent of game world (meta rules).

A lot of AD&D rules are aimed at making for a structured game rather than representing a fictional reality, and sometimes at emulating the genre when the in-game reality isn't defined. This is even more clear when you get to games like Hero System and GURPS, where game balance is an explicit construct. This goes further in hybrid games like Mechwarrior or the Rune RPG, where there are some explicitly wargame rules outside of the fictional reality.

I think original Traveller, RuneQuest, and Harnmaster are probably the closest to pure reality-modeling rules. AD&D mixes in some game-balance rules and some genre rules. The zero-to-hero leveling doesn't work as reality modeling, for example. Gygax was explicit about how some rules were for game balance in his editorials in Dragon magazine.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 15, 2022, 02:10:36 PM

A lot of RPGs these days include what I would consider to be story-gaming mechanics, particularly fate/fortune points, but also rewards based on fulfilling character motivations or narrative goals, and even arguably D&D's inspiration mechanic.

Meta-currency has been part of rpgs fairly early in their development. DC Heroes and Marvel Superheroes rpg's come to mind. The reason I point this out is because story games like to claim they have created something "new". and a use of meta-currency seems to be at the top of the list. Just bullshit. Story games mangle the thoroughly tested concepts of roleplaying games and should drop the pretension of being a role-playing game.   

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 15, 2022, 08:54:29 AM
Yet both 13th Age and Savage Worlds allow players a degree of narration beyond their character action and/or spending metacurrency to declare alterations to the game world, and yet clearly fall on the RPG side of the divide. So the first two criteria are either wrong or need a function of degree to make distinctions between rpgs and storygames.

Bennies, Hero Points, Willpower, or Destiny Points allow for rerolls, buffs, damage mitigation, retroactive provision of a mundane item, or a cinematic survival. However, anything more than a reroll or buff/soak requires GM approval. Players request alteration of reality or only alter probability before the result is adjudicated and GM remains the final arbiter instead of the player getting to unilaterally declare the outcome.

They are story-game elements but they do not break GM fiat or the narrate-declare-adjudicate cycle.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 15, 2022, 02:18:55 PM
Out of curiosity, does that include describing character action? As in: if the player says "Throndor snarls with fury, as he leaps down the stairs and hacks at the goblin with his battleaxe", does that move it into story-gaming territory, or does he have to just say "I move and attack".

Is there an implied "I want to do the following?" Does it occur because the player declared it, or will there be an acrobatics and/or attack roll before the action is resolved? If the player narrates that "the goblin was terrified and Throndor took its head off with one swing of the axe" it a story-game "scene." Conversely, if the GM decides by fiat or dice roll whether the goblin was terrified and and how badly it was axed, before narrating the outcome, then it was a pen and paper RPG "scene."

I can definitely see where some folks are coming from with respect to player narration. If a player can narrate how something goes within a scene as a dungeon master would, outside of just using their specific and well-defined abilities, even if it has an in-world and in-mechanics explanation, like luck magic, I'd call that story gaming. Especially if it uses something like FATE points to invoke aspects or the like, which tie into tropes and narrative factors the player has some degree of domain over either with or without the expenditure of resources. Story gaming, in the sense that the story is up for grabs and narrative manipulations which may or may not have in-world backing are part of the game itself for all participants. Likewise, I don't see resource management as intrinsically tied to story gaming, but that being said I feel metanarrative currency is almost always a signifier that you're playing a story game.

Though I suppose by this narrower definition, some of the games that use the "Storytelling System" (albeit not all, or even most, and definitely not gamelines like the Mage ones) wouldn't actually be story games. Because abilities do specific things, there are defined dice pools and specified possessed skill and attribute levels generating them, specific rules for resolving actions including combat, and even powers in certain gamelines tend to not be narrative in nature unless they are for beings played by the DM. That lack of designation kinda seems a bit off to me, but I guess it could still work.

All said, though, I guess I'd also be inclined to consider games with a strong focus on social interactions and an emphasis on storytelling as falling under the same designation. (Likely including such systems.) Though this isn't to say such games can't have solid skill challenges, and I guess even workable combat provided it is primarily the purpose of said things to drive and be driven by an evolving narrative. Basically, if the main focus is the story being told and interactions between characters as opposed to more concretely winning or losing encounters of whatever nature.

Though I'd also put into that category the rather separate setup of a game with the primary focus being the DM telling a fancy story rather than the players playing a game with mechanics that can derail the narrative. I guess rationally extending this principle, if the DM fudges dice rolls and uses quantum monsters and the like to railroad players or "protect the integrity of the narrative" over the integrity of the rules and player agency, that might count too.

So for me personally the term can have at least three separate subcategories. Unsurprising, I suppose, given that this is kinda just a question of subjective definitions. Still, if I had to stake my claim for what I and folks in my gaming circle consider it, this would probably be it. Hard to give an overarching connection between the three, though, other than that they seem to prioritize storytelling or something. It's really nebulous how associations like this are made, and an argument could probably just as easily be made that all TTRPG games are story games, or even that all games more generally are story games, because stuff happens and that's the basis of a narrative, quality be damned.

Story gaming before it was co-opted could mean a few different things. Usually a more story oriented style of gameplay over mechanics. Or more often mechanics that facilitated storytelling elements in some way.

Later it came to be used to describe some oracle systems like Mythic and FU. One or more tables to roll on and then use that as a springboard for ideas. Works perfectly for solo and DM-less RPGing.

Then along came the cultists and all that went straight to hell and then started tunnelling down from there. Now they were preaching that the DM was bad and must be chained and shackled, if not totally done away with. Rules were increasingly preached as bad and wrong, except for the ones that turned the DM into little more than a vend bot. And so on ad nausium.

Real story gaming, rather than some lunatics hallucinations, is perfectly fine and has been a part of D&D from probably the get-go in various small ways. World-in-Motion gameplay being a good example of how they can mesh perfectly together. TSR experimented with some formats along the way with this or that module even. Early Dragonlance for example had elements of this with things like timed events that were a variation on world-in-motion and other story gaming tools.

Hilariously enough the one RPG that extolled itself as a storytelling game, was really just a bog standard RPG that focused alot on social Role-playing and various courtly intrigues. Stuff that had been around long before White Wolf.

Counter-question: Who really gives a shit?

Not trying to be a jerk, but if you ask ten people to define something in their own words, you'll get ten different answers. Then, inevitable, someone's criteria gets raked because it touches on some gaming system that fits the criteria but not the wider definition. Like what's already happened in this thread.

The only question that should matter is: Is the game fun to play?
Who really cares what defines something as "story game" or "RPG" or any other arbitrary title you want to give to sitting around a table with friends and playing make-believe? The point of the hobby is about having fun, even if the ruleset *is* objectively lazy or oversimplified.

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 02:46:13 AM
Counter-question: Who really gives a shit?

Not trying to be a jerk, but if you ask ten people to define something in their own words, you'll get ten different answers. Then, inevitable, someone's criteria gets raked because it touches on some gaming system that fits the criteria but not the wider definition. Like what's already happened in this thread.

The only question that should matter is: Is the game fun to play?
Who really cares what defines something as "story game" or "RPG" or any other arbitrary title you want to give to sitting around a table with friends and playing make-believe? The point of the hobby is about having fun, even if the ruleset *is* objectively lazy or oversimplified.

I do. Because as a GM, you're in the position of trying to craft a fun experience. Which leads to the question, "What is fun?".