Quote from: greylond;456920So, yea, I've been there, I've played "story games" and IMO, they suck.

I'm not seeing any "story games" in your list, unless Theatrix (with which I am not acquainted) is one -- and even then, one is singular.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;456924Look, most of them were probably sucked in RPing because of the hype on packaging and in the introductory text, which talked about "story". Even if the text didn't go any farther than that, the things that the reader could project onto "story" might well imply things that are incompatible, if not antithetical to IC-POV--like being able to guide or control things using "narrative control".

I can't deny that.  I was an extremely impressionable 14-year-old looking for a creative outlet, and RPing offered me a way to express myself through characters.  It wasn't until I started GMing that I got the story-game, itch, though.

That said, I still enjoy sitting back and dealing only with a single character.  I just enjoy different experiences, is all.

Quote from: greylond;456928Depends on your definition of "Indie." Once I found HackMaster, I never looked back! K&Co produces the exact style of game that I lurve. Kick your ass, RP intensive, sarcastic, Dice rolling goodness. Then came A&8's and that's it. I have a very limited schedule for playing games and since most of the time I end up GMing, I want to GM something that I have fun with.

And that's good!  I wouldn't disparage someone else because they've found something that's fun.  The more of us that are having fun, the better.  It's all fun and games, after all.

I've looked into Hackmaster myself, but my budget keeps me from buying anything that isn't strictly "necessary", in a gaming sense of the word.

Quote from: Phillip;456929I'm not seeing any "story games" in your list, unless Theatrix (with which I am not acquainted) is one -- and even then, one is singular.

Theatrix is the DEFINITION of StoryGame. It's not well known because the company went under. I actually liked quiet a bit of it, but it came down to the only way I could run it was to use the "Optional Dice Roll Mechanic"..

Quote from: Peregrin;456930I've looked into Hackmaster myself, but my budget keeps me from buying anything that isn't strictly "necessary", in a gaming sense of the word.

My first 3 years of running my HackMaster 4th Edition game, the only books that I owned was the PHB and the GMG. My HoBs I got as swag from various game days and Cons.

Now, HMb is a different story, $20 is all you need to jump into a game!

Theatrix is an odd duck. I don't know how greylond would classify it, but it basically encourages the GM to plot out the entire "story" from beginning to end. This would put it strongly into the "storytelling" category (in Peregrin's sense).

But then it has a drama point system which allows players to override the plot. E.g. if the GM has planned a scene which requires the PCs to be captured by a net, and a player spends a point, then they can get out of it and basically force the GM to adjust the plot. IIRC the GM still has final say over whether the point can be spent, and the player can't just spend it--they have to narrate convincingly, based on their character's abilities and the overall situation, how they accomplish whatever it is they want to do.

So, basically, the game straddles "storytelling" and "story-game".

I already said, I GM'ed it for a while. Ended up I didn't like it. I took what I liked about it, in the form of GM advice on plotting out a campaign, and went back to actual games with random chance.

What I'm saying all along, for those who have a problem understanding it, is that a "Game" is something with random chance of the worst possible outcome a realistic possibility. Anything else isn't a game to me anymore. At best it is a mental exercise/tactical training...

Quote from: greylond;456931Theatrix is the DEFINITION of StoryGame. It's not well known because the company went under. I actually liked quiet a bit of it, but it came down to the only way I could run it was to use the "Optional Dice Roll Mechanic"..

Yes, it also has an optional mechanic for using dice. IIRC, the dice determined success/failure completely independently of the character's abilities; the abilities would simply affect how the success/failure was described.

Not sure how you'd do that in conjunction with the main rulebook's emphasis on plotting the story out beforehand, scene-by-scene. Or how it was supposed to interact with the use of Plot Points.

Basically, "story games" all have one or more of the following: extensive use of OOC-control by players, explicitly articulated "moral questions" to explore in play, extensive rules/guidelines/baked-in-expectations that all parties will "drive to conflict", explicit, formalized "conflict resolution systems" that place primary emphasis and causation on story issues as opposed to concrete facts.

greylond, we're cross-posting out of sync, so I'm missing your replies as I type mine. Sorry for any confusion.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;456939Yes, it also has an optional mechanic for using dice. IIRC, the dice determined success/failure completely independently of the character's abilities; the abilities would simply affect how the success/failure was described.

Not sure how you'd do that in conjunction with the main rulebook's emphasis on plotting the story out beforehand, scene-by-scene. Or how it was supposed to interact with the use of Plot Points..

I already said that I used the Optional Dice Rolling mechanic in it. You get around it by adjusting the flow of the story on the fly. Theatrix is for a very "fluid" style of play(and GMing). You have a goal in mind, the stuff in between may change but the end is in sight at all times(even if the ending details change a bit)...

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;456940greylond, we're cross-posting out of sync, so I'm missing your replies as I type mine. Sorry for any confusion.

Meh, yea. that plus I'm watching TV and paying attention to two other websites(one of which is watching Jolly Blackburn draw KODT and chatting) at the same time...

For the people who find the distinction between story-games and RPGs semi-important or whatever:

Would it suffice if a game merely stated within the introduction what it was about?  I know Benoist has stated in the past that "What is Roleplaying?" can be useful because if offers the reader a glimpse into the author's mind and intent for the game, but I'm talking more explicit.  Basically, is it GM-less, is it not, does it focus on story, or challenge?  Is it concerned with simulating an imaginary environment, or no?  What is the intent of the designer in terms of how the system is used in actual play?*

A lot of games nowadays do do this, but I know that not all do this.  Like I said before, I think people are more articulate now about how they play tabletop games.  And I think that articulation can be channeled into practical means by doing the above, rather than trying to construct a theoretical or "academic" framework for how games should be divided.


* That last sentence there I think is extremely important.  Without Call of Cthulhu's careful explanation of skill-use and experience, it would be fairly easy to accidentally abuse skill advancement.  It's also the crux of the issue when it comes to D&D 3e -- how Monte and the other designers actually envisioned it being played, and how people actually played it.

Quote from: Peregrin;456948Would it suffice if a game merely stated within the introduction what it was about?

What do you mean by "would it suffice?"

Quote from: Cole;456950What do you mean by "would it suffice?"

I've seen it put forth here that designating something as either a "story-game" or an "RPG" is important because it can help a potential buyer easily distinguish between the two types of games, or help avoid confusion when getting a group together (does he mean what I mean when he says "RPG"?).  

I'm suggesting that that's impractical because of all of the grey areas and in-betweens, and instead suggesting that it would be more useful for a designer, within the first few pages of a book, to give a rough sketch of play or a "what this is about."

I mean, if there's no practical purpose behind coming up with a "line", or some other set of dividing factors, then all it is is tribalism.  In terms of video-game genres/designs, I could sit here and argue the differences between Japanese and Western RPGs, or the crumbling divide between "real" CRPGs and Action/RPG hybrids till my face turns blue, but most people just don't care, and there's no practical purpose behind it.

Quote from: Peregrin;456948For the people who find the distinction between story-games and RPGs semi-important or whatever:

I find it very important.

The DM for a 3.5 D&D game I'm playing in has "fate points". He tells us when we can spend them, and for what. Basically, they are -- from my perspective -- a way to avoid actually playing the role-playing game. If they become essential, then it will be like a video game that can't be finished except with hacked cheats.

It's bad design to my mind. I'm willing to see how fun the game is in spite of that.

QuoteWould it suffice if a game merely stated within the introduction what it was about?

Suffice for what? [ edit -- I see the answer above! ]

QuoteWithout Call of Cthulhu's careful explanation of skill-use and experience, it would be fairly easy to accidentally abuse skill advancement.

What would be missing from a "non-careful" explanation? What is the "accidental abuse" you have in mind?

Quote from: Phillip;456957Suffice for what?

For whatever purpose this imaginary line will supposedly serve, since people think it's important.  See above post.

QuoteI find it very important.

The DM for a 3.5 D&D game I'm playing in has "fate points". He tells us when we can spend them, and for what. Basically, they are -- from my perspective -- a way to avoid actually playing the role-playing game. If they become essential, then it will be like a video game that can't be finished except with hacked cheats.

It's bad design to my mind. I'm willing to see how fun the game is in spite of that.

That has nothing to do with story-games and everything to do with liking or not liking a specific technique, regardless of whether it's an RPG or a story-game.

QuoteWhat are you talking about? What would be left in a "non-careful" explanation or whatever? What the heck is this "accidental abuse" you have in mind?

The advancement system is based on skill use.  But the use is restricted to tense or dramatic situations only, and so they have to be carefully moderated.  If you go into CoC or any BRP rolling for lots of crap, you're going to end up with character advancing more quickly than they should.

Also, what sort of importance does this one example hinge on?