Quote from: Phillip;457149So, a role-playing game is not necessarily nothing but role-playing all the time.

Your inability to remember what you were talking about three posts earlier is truly dizzying in its incompetence.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;457206Your inability to remember what you were talking about three posts earlier is truly dizzying in its incompetence.

Watch out, this seems to be contagious to some degree. There was a time where I had to quit theRPGsite, because of too many people getting same-thread-post-amnesia.

Justin, why are you so intent on being a feebly insulting irrelevance?

At the least, you could have offered whatever rationale you have for that suggestion. The posts themselves are there for anyone to see, but not what passes for logic in your brain!

No, he's basically right.  The difference, the "line" asked about in the OP between a storygame and an RPG comes down to the fact that in a storygame it is the GOAL of a storygame to "create a story". That is what the group is supposed to work toward.  In an RPG, the goal is to play a character (a role) in an emulated world.

There might be some kind of a story that happens in the process of playing an RPG, but its entirely a byproduct and not the central purpose.  Likewise, some people might do a bit of roleplaying in a storygame, but its utterly secondary to the purpose.  When it comes down to it, in an RPG no one will say "that can't happen because it fucks up the story" or "this should happen because it makes it a better story", and likewise in a storygame no one will say "this happens even though it fucks up the story".  "Telling a story" is always sacrificed in an RPG when it comes down to a choice between that and emulation; and "playing in an emulated world" always gets sacrificed in a storygame when it comes down between that and creating a story.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;457227No, he's basically right.  The difference, the "line" asked about in the OP between a storygame and an RPG comes down to the fact that in a storygame it is the GOAL of a storygame to "create a story". That is what the group is supposed to work toward.  In an RPG, the goal is to play a character (a role) in an emulated world.

...

RPGPundit

I am curious. In reading Apocalypse World, all the mechanics seem to point to this exact style of play. It doesn't care about "the story" it cares about emulating the genre and getting into character and dealing with it. It explicitly advises the MC (GM) to chide the players for "to do it, just do it". If they say something like "I go aggro on him", the MC should ask "OK, how do you do it?". Encourage descriptive in character actions and dialog.

How does AW qualify as a Story-Game?  How does it qualify as MORE of a Story-Game than an RPG?

Who the heck would know? Vincent Baker's designs are often touted as indistinguishable from general RPGs by his fans, but when I actually read them (e.g. storming the wizard's tower), it turns out they're written from a vastly different perspective and have mechanics to match. AW is a little too long to comb through in a game store to make sure you're not omitting anything.

Okay, based on skimming a few reviews, AW is yet another attempt by Baker to be the thin edge of the wedge, and possibly more successful than others. But there are several areas that still mark this (inevitably) as a story game:

1. Complete improvisation of situation is the default mode. "World" doesn't exist (isn't allowed to exist) until and unless it address the characters' "issues".

2. No situational modifiers. Therefore all "moves" are ultimately abstract not concrete, in spite of "to do it you have to do it".

3. The sex moves, which are even more abstract and stereotyped, since (apparently) you just declare that you're doing them. This is probably a blessing in itself, but the fact that a complex action can yield a result with no room for interpretation is what I'm pointing to.

Here are the reviews I looked at:

http://critical-hits.com/2010/08/15/barf-forth-apocalyptica-review-apocalypse-world/
http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/the-book-of-vincent-gming-apocalypse-world
http://dndorks.com/article/93/page1.aspx

Quote from: RPGPundit;457227No, he's basically right.  The difference, the "line" asked about in the OP between a storygame and an RPG comes down to the fact that in a storygame it is the GOAL of a storygame to "create a story". That is what the group is supposed to work toward.  In an RPG, the goal is to play a character (a role) in an emulated world.

There might be some kind of a story that happens in the process of playing an RPG, but its entirely a byproduct and not the central purpose.  Likewise, some people might do a bit of roleplaying in a storygame, but its utterly secondary to the purpose.  When it comes down to it, in an RPG no one will say "that can't happen because it fucks up the story" or "this should happen because it makes it a better story", and likewise in a storygame no one will say "this happens even though it fucks up the story".  "Telling a story" is always sacrificed in an RPG when it comes down to a choice between that and emulation; and "playing in an emulated world" always gets sacrificed in a storygame when it comes down between that and creating a story.

RPGPundit

That is a clear, legitimate distinction you make. It's also kind of dangeerous. But by the same token I draw a disction between games where the goal is to play a character in a emulate world and a game where the goal is simply to beat the  scenario and gain levels as though it were a computer game and any roleplaying that may happen is to the purpose. And the end of the day I can probably coexist better in the same game with a storygamer than, for lack of a beter term, a computer gamer. Our goal might not be the same but there are better synergies as we both, for instance, what to see in game credible characters even if it is for differnet reasons.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;457251Who the heck would know? Vincent Baker's designs are often touted as indistinguishable from general RPGs by his fans, but when I actually read them (e.g. storming the wizard's tower), it turns out they're written from a vastly different perspective and have mechanics to match. AW is a little too long to comb through in a game store to make sure you're not omitting anything.

Okay, based on skimming a few reviews, AW is yet another attempt by Baker to be the thin edge of the wedge, and possibly more successful than others. But there are several areas that still mark this (inevitably) as a story game:

1. Complete improvisation of situation is the default mode. "World" doesn't exist (isn't allowed to exist) until and unless it address the characters' "issues".

Many RPGs are toolboxes where you make up your own setting. D&D for example. Are you saying D&D is a storygame because it doesn't come with a setting and you improvise the situation?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;4572512. No situational modifiers. Therefore all "moves" are ultimately abstract not concrete, in spite of "to do it you have to do it".

3. The sex moves, which are even more abstract and stereotyped, since (apparently) you just declare that you're doing them. This is probably a blessing in itself, but the fact that a complex action can yield a result with no room for interpretation is what I'm pointing to.

Nothing in the current definitions of what a storygame is or isn't has anything to do with situational modifiers or how abstract the game is. If you had played Apocalypse World, hell, if you had read it, you'd probably be able to level some real points on why it is a storygame or isn't without having to move the goalposts. But hey, why read something if you can just move the goalposts and can post from a position of ignorance?
(And really, don't start saying you informed yourself about its nature by reading some reviews, that's just intelectually dishonest)

@RPGPundit: Your definition of what a storygame is, differs quite a bit from the rest of the thread. According to your definition many things which are a storygame according to the other definition suddenly become a RPG, like for example Burning Wheel. Why do you define it that way and don't make the divide with bennies or similar mechanics like the people before you?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;457257According to your definition many things which are a storygame according to the other definition suddenly become a RPG, like for example Burning Wheel.

I'm not the Pundit, but in my book, Burning Wheel clearly is an RPG.

Quote from: Fifth Element;456918IME, the terms are used thusly:

Role-playing games are what I play, while storygames are what they play, where "they" refers to some group you are trying to disparage.

Perhaps for some but not everyone. I can enjoy a storygame but would like it to be presented as such. The experiences can both be enjoyable but in different ways. In a traditional rpg there are two main components, the roleplaying and the game.

 The game component provides excitement that comes from uncertainty. Will we succeed or fail? The game, along with the lives of the characters, could end at any moment.

A storygame can be a fun experience but it lacks the uncertainty component of a traditional rpg. We play to find out how the story unfolds but we know it will come to a satisfactory conclusion of some sort.

While both forms can be enjoyable experiences they do not satisfy the same entertainment needs. If I am looking for a game then the level of uncertainty that comes with it is part what I'm looking for. If I am interested in partaking in telling a story about a group of characters and exploring the details of how they came to save the world and topple an evil empire then falling into a pit and dying on the first adventure will not be satisfying.

The reason to distinguish is similar to why we have movie genres. When you are in the mood for horror, then a romantic comedy just won't cut it.

Quote from: Zalmoxis;457040I just hate all these people who force me to play games I don't like. They're the same people who destroy all my previous D&D products everytime a new one comes out, forcing me to play whatever bullshit they come up with next. Curses!

You are a clueless tool.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;457265You are a clueless tool.

Says the guy/girl arguing the dividing line between "story" games and "roleplaying" games. I mean, this is some genius-level shit going on in here.

Quote from: Zalmoxis;457267Says the guy/girl arguing the dividing line between "story" games and "roleplaying" games. I mean, this is some genius-level shit going on in here.

The fact that you are apparently unaware of such a difference speaks volumes about your intelligence. Its fairly simple actually but I can understand how someone who feels challenged by tying his/her shoes might regard it as genius level.

Quote from: Zalmoxis;457267Says the guy/girl arguing the dividing line between "story" games and "roleplaying" games. I mean, this is some genius-level shit going on in here.

Says the guy who can discuss where D&D "jumped the shark" in  serious way.

Quote from: Sigmund;457272Says the guy who can discuss where D&D "jumped the shark" in  serious way.

For myself I was being serious. WOTC D&D as a whole isn't my cup of tea so the the first printing of the 3.0 PHB is accurate as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;457274For myself I was being serious. WOTC D&D as a whole isn't my cup of tea so the the first printing of the 3.0 PHB is accurate as far as I'm concerned.

Oh indeed. My only point is Zalmoxis is going to try to say talking about when a RPG nobody is forcing him to play, or use all the splatbooks for, or whatever "jumped the shark" is a serious topic, but discussing the difference between RPGs and Story Games is not. I think they are both interesting topics, but neither are all that serious in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly don't see where talking about where D&D "jumped the shark" is any more serious than talking about how RPGs and Story Games are different.