It's just occurred to me that what the storygamers really want to market on would fit better into a boardgame.

The way they are trying to approximate their products to roleplaying games with a boardgame design philosophy has me smelling sulphur.

From farts--I wouldn't grant them grandiose visions of a paradise lost.

Wrath of God, here are some parts of Vampire: the Masquerade 2nd Edition text that, in my view, may incentivise GMs to adopt a more pre-scripted/linear/railroading style of play. There are more parts, but I think these suffice as an example. Emphasis mine for the important parts:

Quote- Chapter Six, Chonicle, Pg 66:

"This chapter describes how to establish and develop a Vampire chronicle. It serves the same function for the Storyteller and the chronicle that the previous chapter does for the player and the character. It not only describes how to design a chronicle, but includes advice on how to keep the level of player interest high throughout its course. The process of designing stories as well as chronicles is explained in detail, and examples are provided. This chapter provides you with the tools to create a compelling and complete Vampire chronicle, not only at its genesis, but at all stages of its development."

Quote- Creating a chronicle: "a plan of the progression of the chronicle should be constructed, to detail where you want to take it and where you must start".

Quote- Scheme, pg 68. "Finally, you need to create a plan for how you want the chronicle to progress. Where should the stories take the characters, and how will the chronicle eventually end (if ever)? The initial plan is a blueprint for creating not only the beginning of a good chronicle, but the entire thing. This scheme details where you want the chronicle to go and what you want the characters to be doing. More than likely, the chronicle will end up very differently than what you intended. Indeed, if it does end up exactly as you thought it would, it might mean you aren't allowing the characters enough free will. The scheme is intended to be a guide to help you understand what you want the chronicle to be - it's a means of forcing yourself to make it dynamic, with changes in tempo, mood and content. It should have a beginning, a middle and an end, and should progress relentlessly towards a resolution. Always try to stage a great ending to the chronicle. Never let it slowly decline into an obscure death. Will the chronicle end with the death of the characters as part of a heroic sacrifice, or will one of them manage to become mortal once again?.

A chronicle shares many of the same characteristics that a series of movies or novels does, only it can be even longer and broader in scope. It can last for many years (player years) because it is based upon the lives of vampires, who are immortal. Thus, it is possible for a single chronicle to cover several hundred years in time, particularly if you begin it at some point in the past. However, if you set the chronicle in the present, it is likely that your chronicle will take place over years or decades, not centuries. After all, Gehenna is fast approaching, and there is not much time left.

- - -

Of course, together with those parts it also says things like "...the ideal chronicle shouldn't end exactly as you plan, as the PCs have free will and their actions may change it", etc. which implies some wiggle room should left in place for the players to deviate from the central plot here and there. But I think it's not absurd to conclude that advice as a whole may have taught a generation of storyteller GMs whose playstyle formed around pre-scripted stories, complete with concepts like rhythm, twists, climax, etc. all prepped in advance like the author of a book or movie would do. The same way, a lot of players were introducted to RPGs through this style and so are okay in going for a ride through those stories. And again, while it's not my particular preference, I acknowledge there's nothing inherently wrong with the style (horror and mystery gaming make good use of it, for example).

The important point to make here, I think, is how this style deviates from the old-school gaming that preceded it, best represented by the triumvirate OD&D-Traveller-Runequest where the GM was seen more as an impartial arbiter, letting the dice fall where it may and not really caring about things like tempo or climax. Also, how it inspired a strong reaction from the groups that would come to birth the storygaming/Forge movement, also in opposition to it.

"story gaming".

Well, doesn't every game tell a story for the most part?

I mean, if you're talking about a bunch of people sitting around, flapping their gums, and coming up with what can be considered shitty fan fic...then sure that's "Story gaming" in a modern sense... I guess.

I never liked those types of games: Vampire: The Masquerade being the biggest culprit.

they seem soo...I dunno...like wanna-be shitty community theater.

IMO, they seemed to appeal to players who couldn't hack it playing real RPGs. Ya know, the kid who always pitched a fit when he couldn't get his way for his character, or lost it when his PC died, or some other narccissitic bullshit.

Never appealed to me.

Quote from: blackstone on February 14, 2023, 07:23:48 AM
"story gaming".

Well, doesn't every game tell a story for the most part?

Yes. Yes it does. I don't myself identify as a "storygamer" and I more naturally fit on the anti-storygamer side. But the level of denial out of a lot of the anti-storygamers, there is nothing kind I can say about it. It's off-putting to the extreme, certainly delusional, and gives a self-defeating bad look.

QuoteI mean, if you're talking about a bunch of people sitting around, flapping their gums, and coming up with what can be considered shitty fan fic...then sure that's "Story gaming" in a modern sense... I guess.

Yeah. I agree that the methods of story gamers tend not to produce what I would consider to be good stories. All the more reason I think a lot of the anti-storygamers are straight up stupid to be ceding the term "story" to a paradigm that does it badly.

QuoteI never liked those types of games: Vampire: The Masquerade being the biggest culprit.

Prepare to get told V:tM is not what is considered a storygame. It's a common mistake. I think the reason it's so common is because people aren't being honest in their terminology. There is a history in the tabletop world of the term "story" in particular being hijacked. Even more reason why I have nothing kind to say to the anti-storygamers who just cede that linguistic ground entirely. Let's insist words get used in a way that is obvious to people who aren't living in theory wank internet bubbles.

Quotethey seem soo...I dunno...like wanna-be shitty community theater.

IMO, they seemed to appeal to players who couldn't hack it playing real RPGs. Ya know, the kid who always pitched a fit when he couldn't get his way for his character, or lost it when his PC died, or some other narccissitic bullshit.

Never appealed to me.

Maybe. Definitely true in some cases. I talked to a lot of the Storyteller system die-hards back in the day. A lot of them were my friends, and I did game with them. There is a degree that they couldn't hack it and being able to repeat the line of, "well, we care more about the story than the rules" was definitely a cope. I also care more about the story than the rules. But I still know the rules. I still run BtB games as a GM. I can still build highly effective characters and play strategically. And because I know what I'm doing, I run perfectly compelling AD&D adventures.

But it's also possible the converse is true. I can't remember ever playing a game of V:tM where we didn't go from this big intro about the importance of the masquerade, to street brawls with PCs hurling volkswagons within the first session. Starting with such powerful characters goes to most gamers heads. Maybe your average gamer just can't hack V:tM. Maybe the hardcore V:tM adherents were a different breed of gamer mature enough to not do that shit. I personally have never seen it. But I'm sure there are groups out there that made it work.

"story gaming" to me has the connotation of a game where nobody rolls any dice.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on February 14, 2023, 09:13:26 AM
"story gaming" to me has the connotation of a game where nobody rolls any dice.

Except Amber isn't storygaming, and there aren't even any dice at all.

Quote from: Brad on February 14, 2023, 09:45:34 AM

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on February 14, 2023, 09:13:26 AM
"story gaming" to me has the connotation of a game where nobody rolls any dice.

Except Amber isn't storygaming, and there aren't even any dice at all.

This might be one of those "all pugs are dogs, but not all dogs are pugs" kind of things. I don't really know about amber, I also don't have as large of a library of games to pull from in my own personal reckoning/experience of storygames or other games.

When I first heard about V:tM, the premise sounded pretty cool.

...and then when it got to the game mechanics, or lack thereof, it's just...ugh.

rock-paper-scissors? REALLY?

LAME

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on February 14, 2023, 09:51:16 AM
This might be one of those "all pugs are dogs, but not all dogs are pugs" kind of things. I don't really know about amber, I also don't have as large of a library of games to pull from in my own personal reckoning/experience of storygames or other games.

Well, I think it's more about storygames being a particular play style rather than some specific mechanics/dice/whatever. Dungeon World is storygaming because it has a meta-mechanic that makes CHARACTERS able to control the game. I think this is a huge difference between something like Brownie Points in Ghostbusters...in GB, the player uses Brownie Points to add to die rolls or whatever, but the characters have no idea about this happening; it's basically a plus to a roll, like what you'd get from a magic sword in D&D. From what I can tell about DW, the PCs are actually pseudo-aware that they're changing the environment, which is just...not an RPG.

I haven't played anything WoD yet, but just considering what little I know of V:tM its main focus is supposed to be on social intrigue rather than martial prowess, while true to proper roleplaying. Vampires are a corrupted nobility a la Dracula, so I'd term it more like "honourgaming" than the wargaming of D&D. They need to write an advanced ruleset/supplement concerning rank, propriety, etiquette, et al, maybe implement a "sparring" system of cues and interjections, and also take a better look at punishments like exile, imprisonment, branding, and enslavement in relation to the coven.

Quote from: Brad on February 14, 2023, 10:18:43 AM
Well, I think it's more about storygames being a particular play style rather than some specific mechanics/dice/whatever. Dungeon World is storygaming because it has a meta-mechanic that makes CHARACTERS able to control the game. I think this is a huge difference between something like Brownie Points in Ghostbusters...in GB, the player uses Brownie Points to add to die rolls or whatever, but the characters have no idea about this happening; it's basically a plus to a roll, like what you'd get from a magic sword in D&D. From what I can tell about DW, the PCs are actually pseudo-aware that they're changing the environment, which is just...not an RPG.

If it's the characters doing it, doesn't that make it kosher RPG-wise?

Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys has a little bit of that. For example, it has a relatively low level Priestcraeft casting that allows the Priest to state a fact about the world and have it be true. It's fairly limited in scale and scope. And it's not the only reality-hack available to characters. And then there's Joss which is more a meta-mechanic with ties to the character. When you read the fine print, DJ has a lot of stuff that I think effectively bridges the RPG to what would later be termed storygames. But it's hardly the first example of an RPG having mechanisms by which Characters can exercise some control over the world. Anyone remember a game called D&D and a little something called "Wish"?

I mean, I'm not familiar with Dungeon World, so if I'm missing something vital, would you mind filling me in?

Quote from: Lunamancer on February 14, 2023, 10:38:38 AM
If it's the characters doing it, doesn't that make it kosher RPG-wise?

Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys has a little bit of that. For example, it has a relatively low level Priestcraeft casting that allows the Priest to state a fact about the world and have it be true. It's fairly limited in scale and scope. And it's not the only reality-hack available to characters. And then there's Joss which is more a meta-mechanic with ties to the character. When you read the fine print, DJ has a lot of stuff that I think effectively bridges the RPG to what would later be termed storygames. But it's hardly the first example of an RPG having mechanisms by which Characters can exercise some control over the world. Anyone remember a game called D&D and a little something called "Wish"?

I mean, I'm not familiar with Dungeon World, so if I'm missing something vital, would you mind filling me in?

Honestly I don't even know. I read the game and tried playing it once, all I got from it was there was waaaaaay too much time spent with meta-mechanics and little actual gaming. It was more a boardgame than an RPG, even while claiming it was narrative in nature. Contrast this with the Ghostbusters games I played when I was a kid. We were fucking up ghosts, and the GM was telling us about cracking skulls in the metaphysical sense. We were NOT talking about how to frame a particular sequence of events to achieve a goal, or whatever the fuck DW does.

As stated, I don't even know. I do know that DW sucks, and storygames are not RPGs and they suck.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 14, 2023, 10:35:42 AM
I haven't played anything WoD yet, but just considering what little I know of V:tM its main focus is supposed to be on social intrigue rather than martial prowess, while true to proper roleplaying.

I think that's a fair assessment. I've always pushed back on it being "proper roleplaying." I think the problem is, and you might appreciate this as someone who's attuned the monomyth, is that gamers are just about the furthest thing from heroes. Not that you're playing heroes in V:tM, but you are playing powerful beings. It takes a rare discipline to not let that go to your head. That's why we get Volkswagon dodgeball. Going through a hero's journey helps develop the mindset of playing characters that are of heroic proportions. And so I think that's one of the great unsung benefits of D&D's zero-to-hero motif.

Every now and then just for fun gamers might discuss and share who their dream group would be if they could have any famous person at their table. Almost everyone lists some fruity actor that has done fantasy or period films. I choose Mike Tyson. This is a dude who came from nothing, climbed to the top, then got thrown all the way down to the bottom, attempted a comeback and became something of a mockery, and now has come to terms with the parts of him that get out of control and how to keep that in check to get along in the world. I don't care if he's never acted, doesn't know fantasy tropes, or anything else. This dude knows the journey, and he could probably roleplay circles around the world's greatest actors when it comes to playing a heroic adventurer, or a vampire.

QuoteVampires are a corrupted nobility a la Dracula, so I'd term it more like "honourgaming" than the wargaming of D&D. They need to write an advanced ruleset/supplement concerning rank, propriety, etiquette, et al, maybe implement a "sparring" system of cues and interjections, and also take a better look at punishments like exile, imprisonment, branding, and enslavement in relation to the coven.

Well, V:tM does have social structures hashed out, and in terms of mechanics the game has "social skills." The tools are there. But like anything, it takes practice to get good at using them. It's a rare gamer who can show up day 1 and play the way a vampire needs to be played for the whole game to work as intended.

Quote from: Lunamancer on February 14, 2023, 11:23:52 AM
Every now and then just for fun gamers might discuss and share who their dream group would be if they could have any famous person at their table. Almost everyone lists some fruity actor that has done fantasy or period films. I choose Mike Tyson.

Did everyone at the table clap?

Quote from: Brad on February 14, 2023, 10:57:43 AM
Honestly I don't even know. I read the game and tried playing it once, all I got from it was there was waaaaaay too much time spent with meta-mechanics and little actual gaming. It was more a boardgame than an RPG, even while claiming it was narrative in nature. Contrast this with the Ghostbusters games I played when I was a kid. We were fucking up ghosts, and the GM was telling us about cracking skulls in the metaphysical sense. We were NOT talking about how to frame a particular sequence of events to achieve a goal, or whatever the fuck DW does.

As stated, I don't even know. I do know that DW sucks, and storygames are not RPGs and they suck.

This is a common sort of response I get whenever I start asking detailed questions about a storygame. Not a knock against you at all, by the way. It's a knock against these games.

I really don't think anyone is playing any of these games. I'm not even sure anyone's even reading them. And that's probably because you're exactly right. They suck.

You can scroll back a few pages on this thread. I forget who. At some point someone tried calling me out as not knowing anything about story games. That has happened in literally every thread on storygames I've ever been in. I fired back citing some actual game details. Not even anything earth-shattering. Pretty superficial stuff that anyone who's even browsed the manual could come out with. And that totally ended that accusation. It's almost as if the person that challenged me knows nothing at all about these games, but was playing the confidence game. And as soon as it became clear that I actually did know something it was like, oh shit, better back down before I get exposed.

I know if I had been on the other side of that argument, I would have responded with something like, well, that's just one storygame, here are a bunch of others and how they differ from that one you've read. That's the response I was expecting. But nope. That would require knowing how the game I cited worked along with a handful of others. These arguments are all fake.

I've noticed you often see people post things like "how DitV handles it" but don't actually describe how DitV handles it. Or even bother to spell out what DitV stands for. That's part of the con game. Be as obscure as possible--it keeps people from asking questions without sounding stupid. That's the way empty shells want it. D&D and V:tM have had enough success and popularity that they are easily identifiable by just those letters. BitD has not earned that. Even CoC is borderline, but that one I'm okay with because I don't think spelling Cthulhu should be a pre-requisite of joining in the conversation.