Quote from: DominikSchwager;457257Many 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?

No, as a rule we -- per the instructions in the books -- do not improvise the situation. Rather than "not being allowed to exist", dungeon and town and Wilderness are mapped and keyed for players to explore. There's a there, there.

QuoteNothing 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.

Why no situational modifiers? That's not just 'abstract' but utterly against simulation. It makes no sense for role-playing -- unless the roles are in a world so bizarre that in fact there is no difference between near and far, light and heavy, fast and slow, etc. -- but it makes eminent sense for story-telling, so long as some other mechanism (even player fiat) is introducing dramatic rules to govern the course of events.

Both of these look like cases of deciding, "We don't care much about acting from the positions of personas in a world that is real to them. We care more about acting from the positions of people making up the world as a literary device."

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

I never, ever discuss anything in a serious way. EVER. Never ever.

Quote from: Zalmoxis;457279I never, ever discuss anything in a serious way. EVER. Never ever.

Well you certainly didn't say it was "fucking stupid" in that thread. You even managed to be on-topic in that thread. What makes the subject of when D&D "jumped the shark" less "fucking stupid" than what the difference is between RPGs and Story Games? If you're going to post less serious posts, at least take a lesson from Aos and make them entertaining rather than threadcrapping trolls.

I must be fuzzy on the whole history of the categories because I'm having a difficult time seeing how there's any significant difference between a "storygame" and an "RPG". Broken down to the idea that storygames involve narrative control over and against simulation resolution doesn't make much sense to me, since (to take a random example) even the most basic rolls in D&D can be considered attempts to exercise "narrative control". In other words, I have a hard time seeing a RPG as anything but a storygame. Without that element of narrative control you're... I don't know, playing Call of Duty multiplayer, or something.

Perhaps somebody can break it down for me, since my ignorance of the distinction (and thus dissention) is showing? I might be operating from bias, however, since I play almost all games (barring edge cases like the aforementioned CoD MP) for pursuit of a story rather than for a realistic simulation of events. Or it could be game blindness -- I tend to only play stuff like D&D, CoC, Harn, Vampire etc so I could just not be familiar with the games that mark the distinction.

Edit: Upon re-reading the past few pages, I think I must fall into Pseudoephedrine's third category of persons. Since, to borrow Pundit's quick definition, I simply don't see a meaningful difference between "playing a character in a game to experience a story" and "playing a game to experience a story". The former may be an in situ definition of RPGs, but I don't see how it can't encapsulate the latter ostensible storygames definition.

Quote from: Géza Echs;457302I must be fuzzy on the whole history of the categories because I'm having a difficult time seeing how there's any significant difference between a "storygame" and an "RPG". Broken down to the idea that storygames involve narrative control over and against simulation resolution doesn't make much sense to me, since (to take a random example) even the most basic rolls in D&D can be considered attempts to exercise "narrative control". In other words, I have a hard time seeing a RPG as anything but a storygame. Without that element of narrative control you're... I don't know, playing Call of Duty multiplayer, or something.

Perhaps somebody can break it down for me, since my ignorance of the distinction (and thus dissention) is showing? I might be operating from bias, however, since I play almost all games (barring edge cases like the aforementioned CoD MP) for pursuit of a story rather than for a realistic simulation of events. Or it could be game blindness -- I tend to only play stuff like D&D, CoC, Harn, Vampire etc so I could just not be familiar with the games that mark the distinction.

Edit: Upon re-reading the past few pages, I think I must fall into Pseudoephedrine's third category of persons. Since, to borrow Pundit's quick definition, I simply don't see a meaningful difference between "playing a character in a game to experience a story" and "playing a game to experience a story". The former may be an in situ definition of RPGs, but I don't see how it can't encapsulate the latter ostensible storygames definition.

For me, it boils down to what the point of playing and how ya go about doing that is. I can tell you that the Story Games I have (Covenant, Lady Blackbird, and Darkening Skies) play very differently than any RPGs I've played before (quite a few). Some folks seem to think the only reason to catagorise them is to denigrate Story Games, but as far as I'm concerned that has nothing to do with it. I consider them different, but similar games and separating them makes it easier to discuss them and makes the most sense to me. I'll use my tactical Minis Game analogy again and say, although I can use Melee to roleplay, it is not a RPG. Neither is Lady Blackbird. It has characters, yes, and a setting too. Thing is, the whole point of playing as well as the specific things you as a player do and say, and the method used to arrive at different outcomes are all vastly different than any RPG I've played before. This is no more inherently bad than the rules and methods of Melee are. They're just different. I acknowledge and discuss that difference by calling RPGs "RPG" and Story Games "Story Game". There's overlap aplenty as it's a spectrum not a hard line (to me) just like the difference between Tac Mini Games and RPGs (frex Melee is TMG, but add in Wizard and In the Labyrinth and it's a RPG).

You might be different, but I've never in my gaming life sat down to play an RPG with the conscious goal in mind to create a story. I can tell stories about my playing of RPGs, both from the pov of me as the player and from the pov of the character I played the game with. That doesn't mean the point of playing the game, for me, was to create those stories any more than the point of using the toilet or making lunch is to create stories. The point of Covenant is to create a story, and the tools and methods included in the game are for the purpose of realising that point. Characters dont have stats and skills they use to interact with the game world. They have conflicts, edges, agendas, orders, truisms, consequences, etc.. that are used to build a collaberative story. The #1 rule of the game is "Respect what has already been narrated.", with the additional important rule that reads, "Until it's narrated, it isn't true". I've never seen rules like that articulated in a RPG, nor would I expect to.

Quote from: Géza Echs;457302Broken down to the idea that storygames involve narrative control over and against simulation resolution doesn't make much sense to me, since (to take a random example) even the most basic rolls in D&D can be considered attempts to exercise "narrative control".

So can ANYTHING anyone does in real life, if one cares so little about the difference between a twee metaphor and a factual statement!

"Hey, Adrian, what's up?"
"I'm playing a game in which I attempt to exercise narrative control to tell a story in which my DLLs are not FUBAR."
"Huh?"
"My computer is messed up, and I'm trying to get some help to fix it."

Quote from: Sigmund;457319(frex Melee is TMG, but add in Wizard and In the Labyrinth and it's a RPG).

There are no necessary "rules for roleplaying" in Wizard or ITL. Is it a "spell system" that creates roleplaying? No. Chainmail had that. Is it a "talents system", or a "jobs system"? No. Dungeons & Dragons did not have those.

Roleplaying is not in mathematical formulas in books but in what we do.

ITL adds a lot of explanation and commentary related to FRP, but Melee was not released into a vacuum! It came from, and was directed back at, the  very same cultural context already in ferment with D&D and T&T and so on.

QuoteYou might be different, but I've never in my gaming life sat down to play an RPG with the conscious goal in mind to create a story.

Yes, that goal is key to all that follows.

Role-playing itself no more assuredly creates a neat story than does living a real life. My undertaking to carry off a great treasure from an adventure is an adventure precisely because the intersection of my anticipation with factors as yet unknown and with the vagaries of chance introduces a risk that I instead shall meet an 'untimely' end.

This is intrinsic to any role that is even remotely related to actual humanity. If I am indeed playing Robert E. Howard in relation to his own life, then it is only after events have transpired that I selectively tell stories about them and so imbue them with a dramatic interpretation. Nature itself has no such concern, and I have no supernatural powers to make the future conform to my artistic vision.

Conan the Cimmerian, if he lives, is in the same position concerning his own life. However, when Conan is just a fiction and my role is solely that of Mr. Howard in relation to his fictional construct, or even of Vincent D'Onofrio playing the role of Howard in a movie relating to Conan as a fictional construct, then I have a very evidently different perspective and set of resources at my disposal.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;457251...

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.
...

I don't believe these are useful distinctions. Also, I think your personal bias against the designer is coloring your reading of the game. By the general most popular definition touted so far as to the distinction between an RPG versus Story Game, I feel Apocalypse World is squarely an RPG. I have no person love of any particular game, company or designer. I state this opinion on reading the game and this thread (trying to understand where people are coming from).  To your points;

1. Who defines an RPG being an RPG because it a) has a defined world or b) favors improvisation? GURPS has no setting. Nor does HERO. These are RPGs. I feel this is a very arbitrary distinction. Personal preference? Absolutely. But I can't see these as defining parts of a RPG versus a Story Game.  Also, AW has a setting. It's not super detailed but there is a premise about how it works. Also, you are instructed to draw it out in your "fronts" later with some advice on where to place stuff. It's customizable, but it's there. No different that many other "generic" genre focused RPGs like D&D.

So far, the best distinction I have seen in this thread, and probably the most useful, would be to define a story game as having mechanics that help players create a story (more narrative control, less focus on reality simulation versus plot creation) versus an RPG with mechanics that focus on simulating reality to play a role. Story Games' mechanics focus on creating story, RPG mechanics focus on playing a role in a world of make believe. I may not see a hard line there, but it seems like a useful line.

Also on this point, I have read the book (we're gearing up to play a campaign here over the next couple months) and no where in the book did I read "only bring the world in to address character issues." The book instructs the MC (GM) to "barf forth Apocalyptica" and color descriptions of everything in the decayed and hopeless future. There is a whole mechanism for "fronts" where you create upcoming stuff for the game (places, plots, people, events). The terminology is different than D&D, and the advice for running it is more casual and peppered with "slang terms" (the idea that language evolves and these are the new terms people use in the "current time"), but I'm not seeing the distinction in execution. It suggests you start the first session with character creation and a simple "what are you doing today? what's a typical day like for Frank?" It's essentially a prelude to feel out the characters, get people talking about their histories with each other, and get to playing. Then you design stuff to throw at them in the next session. It's very sandbox. Stars without number is a sandbox focused game. Different instructional approaches, but again, similar execution.

2. Again, a personal preference of yours, but not required to be an RPG IMHO. Example: you could say that all modifiers are factored into random rolls. If you miss or fail, you can invoke some element described in a scene to inject in the description of what happens just as a resounding success could be explained by factors in the character's favor. "I dropped my axe because it's raining and muddy." "I scored 12 points over the target number, so I plummet my sword into his heart." You are still playing a role. You are still controlling a character, describing what they do, taking actions... Games can have various approaches to modifiers from sticklers for physics to a "basic relative scale", but that doesn't change what players are doing at the table.

3. You just "apparently" claim you are sundering a weapon in D&D. You just "apparently" claim you're invoking your Love for the Chief's Daughter in Riddle of Steal and add the bonus to your roll. The sex moves are nothing more than "class abilities" that come into play when you have sex. The game has included mechanics for social benefits when you "give it up" as that is a kind of currency in the Post-Apocalypse (in the premise of this games default setting). History (Hx) is important because the game is focused on character relationships as a driving force to how people behave in the game. It's not dictating behavior, but it's factoring it in (with no more or less significance than say RoS's spiritual traits). This is not a good distinction for the difference between a RPG and a Story Game.

Based on the majority of definitions, Apocalypse World is an RPG. It reads like one and (I will know more in the coming weeks) seems to play like one. It's not focused on creating story nor are the mechanics focused on creating story. It's about playing cool kids in the apocalypse and experiencing it for its dark horrifying glory. I think theRPGsite has mis-categorized this game - probably out of the personal bias and political-social battle between "the swine" and The Pundit. I think personal feelings should be set aside, theRPGsite should be the better person, and put games in the general category they are designed to (as to the definition above that seems to be the most popular here).

Addendum: I do believe there is a distinction between an RPG and Story Game, but I also agree that the line is blurry. Frankly, discussions would be better had with "I believe, I feel, I like, I want, I don't like..." than trying to categorize a game. Who cares about the different types of games? Why can't we play everything and pick out the games we like?

I stand by my opinion that the best distinction so far is the one I paraphrased above. It may not be perfect, but I think the focus on approach and mechanics is the fairest approach.

Frankly, I think the argument and the distinction here on theRPGsite has become absurd. Not from a "categorization" stand point, but from the political-social bias it's trying to create. The personal feelings and championing of causes has far out-shined any plausible distinctions IMHO. To the point that people are tossing in personal preferences as what defines an RPG versus a Story Game. It would be incredibly useful if the moderators could pen up a policy and sticky it on the site as to a widely acceptable distinction and why games are separated into two forums.  Even better, it would be awesome for theRPGsite to "stand down" in the war against "The Swine" and just discuss any and all games for their merits versus this any "type" distinction. In one RPG forum. It would make theRPGsite more useful in the overall discussion about games.

In the end, wouldn't it be more fun to just discuss games than argue about what kids have to sit at the Story Games table?

Quote from: Sigmund;457319For me, it boils down to what the point of playing and how ya go about doing that is. I can tell you that the Story Games I have (Covenant, Lady Blackbird, and Darkening Skies) play very differently than any RPGs I've played before (quite a few). Some folks seem to think the only reason to catagorise them is to denigrate Story Games, but as far as I'm concerned that has nothing to do with it. I consider them different, but similar games and separating them makes it easier to discuss them and makes the most sense to me. I'll use my tactical Minis Game analogy again and say, although I can use Melee to roleplay, it is not a RPG. Neither is Lady Blackbird. It has characters, yes, and a setting too. Thing is, the whole point of playing as well as the specific things you as a player do and say, and the method used to arrive at different outcomes are all vastly different than any RPG I've played before. This is no more inherently bad than the rules and methods of Melee are. They're just different. I acknowledge and discuss that difference by calling RPGs "RPG" and Story Games "Story Game". There's overlap aplenty as it's a spectrum not a hard line (to me) just like the difference between Tac Mini Games and RPGs (frex Melee is TMG, but add in Wizard and In the Labyrinth and it's a RPG).

You might be different, but I've never in my gaming life sat down to play an RPG with the conscious goal in mind to create a story. I can tell stories about my playing of RPGs, both from the pov of me as the player and from the pov of the character I played the game with. That doesn't mean the point of playing the game, for me, was to create those stories any more than the point of using the toilet or making lunch is to create stories. The point of Covenant is to create a story, and the tools and methods included in the game are for the purpose of realising that point. Characters dont have stats and skills they use to interact with the game world. They have conflicts, edges, agendas, orders, truisms, consequences, etc.. that are used to build a collaberative story. The #1 rule of the game is "Respect what has already been narrated.", with the additional important rule that reads, "Until it's narrated, it isn't true". I've never seen rules like that articulated in a RPG, nor would I expect to.

So there are three types of superficially similar games that involve playing with characters: RPGs, tactical minis games, and story-games? And in RPGs the point is to experience a world in motion, in tactical minis to beat the other guy, and in story-games to collaboratively construct a narrative?

The interesting thing about the distinction you're making is that it seems to recapitulate the tripartite scheme of "GNS" from the Forge's "Big Model," except that (1) the "creative agenda" is attributed to the game rather than the game group, and (2) only one mode of play gets to be called "role-playing."

Quote from: Bill White;457332The interesting thing about the distinction you're making is that it seems to recapitulate the tripartite scheme of "GNS" from the Forge's "Big Model," except that (1) the "creative agenda" is attributed to the game rather than the game group, and (2) only one mode of play gets to be called "role-playing."

It's one of the great frauds of GNS that it tries to imply that a certain interest in one aspect of RPGs automatically enables non-RPG game design. It blurs the lines by over-analizing this or that aspect and pushing each of them to an extreme where it just is no longer a role playing game. An interest in tactical goals in a role playing game automatically devolves into a miniatures wargame design, an interest in role playing a character's emotions or ties to the game world, an interest in the character's development, automatically enables bird's eye view "story telling" in a role playing game, et cetera.

It actually goes even further, in that the games henceforth HAVE to specialize into a specific area to be properly designed. And if you happen to like a variety of aspects of role playing games, and enjoy the whole, instead of an exclusive part of the activities they imply, then you are brain-damaged.

QuoteIt actually goes even further, in that the games henceforth HAVE to specialize into a specific area to be properly designed. And if you happen to like a variety of aspects of role playing games, and enjoy the whole, instead of an exclusive part of the activities they imply, then you are brain-damaged.

Edwards says a lot of weird, caustic, and sometimes flat out wrong things, but he doesn't say that.

This thread is becoming incoherent.

Quote from: trechriron"I dropped my axe because it's raining and muddy."

What you are missing is that the fact of whether I dropped my axe or not, and why, is probably NOT "because I thought it would make a good story". Rain and mud have an existence independent of my desires! I do not decree that they cause my grip to slip; I discover it, after nature (or Providence, if you will) has not only decreed but enacted the fact.

Now, it is certainly a different matter if I am an author making up a rationale for Garg the Mighty to drop his axe so that he can be captured (so that he can escape and make his way to a confrontation with the villain who will then wield Garg's own axe against him...).

As an author of a story, rain and mud are but trifles to my hand, to be summoned and directed and dismissed at my pleasure. They obey my will because they are but products of my will.

In an RPG, the GM is God, looking from a remove upon the characters and their world.

In a story game, each player is an Author, looking from a remove upon the characters and their world.

Quote from: Géza Echs;457302Broken down to the idea that storygames involve narrative control over and against simulation resolution doesn't make much sense to me, since (to take a random example) even the most basic rolls in D&D can be considered attempts to exercise "narrative control". In other words, I have a hard time seeing a RPG as anything but a storygame. Without that element of narrative control you're... I don't know, playing Call of Duty multiplayer, or something.

This may or may not add to what Phillip posted, but why aren't the manipulations you perform via the CoD interface also "attempts to exercise 'narrative control'"?