Quote from: trechriron;457233I 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.

I don't know Apocalypse World. But could the advice being given there just as easily be tacked on to a rulebook for Monopoly?

"I buy the property."
"Okay. How do you do that?"

There are lots of games that you can freeform roleplay around. It's why I focus on the actual mechanics when distinguishing between game types.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;457350This (the relative value of "coherence" vs. "incoherence") is one of the big obvious issues on which GNS theory is totally stupid and makes predictions about play that are contrary to experience, so I've noticed some of the lesser Forgistas backing off from it over time.

At the risk of further derailing this thread and cribbing from discussions I've had about this in e-mail and elsewhere:

GNS is generally a waste of time. Virtually all of its insights are more usefully found in the original Threefold Model.

Basically, Edwards had a very specific preference for a very specific kind of Dramatist play. He labeled this Narrativist, but then he found himself with a whole bunch of other Dramatist playstyles that didn't fit into the N box of his new GNS. So he took all of those playstyles and kind of shoved them into Simulationist play, which he had never understood all that well in the first place.

Basically, the Threefold had a very specific and useful definition of its three axes. And it largely constrained itself to the description of the rationale used for any individual decision point. In terms of each decision point, one is forced to make a trade-off when it comes to the rationale used. Overall playstyles are described as an aggregate of decision points. I don't agree with all of this, would quibble in the details, and think it likely that the fourth axis of Socializing that was being punted around rgf.advocacy back in the day is probably a good addition to the model. But the model is fundamentally coherent.

Edwards did put important emphasis on the impact of rule system on playstyle. Although his purity-driven style of system design results, by its very nature, in games of specifically narrow appeal. Edwards may not like the "incoherence" of classic D&D, for example, but it is specifically its broad mechanical flexibility that made the game appeal successfully to many different gamers.

I bring all of this up because trying to apply GNS as dividing line between storytelling games and roleplaying games is not useful because it tends to feed into Edwards' distortions of the Threefold Model. The model was designed to discuss factors which contribute to a decision being made during a roleplaying game and not the type of decision being made.

I'd also argue that the theory has the most relevance to the GM's decisions. But it's specifically on the GM's side of the screen where the distinction between storytelling games and roleplaying games is the most blurry.

Quote from: Géza Echs;457302Edit: 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.

Nobody said anything about "to experience a story".  You added that on.  Story is IN NO WAY a goal of RPGs.  Its only a byproduct.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;457368I'm talking about the GM not generating any concrete setting details until they're invoked in play, and then generating them according to a specific story agenda.

This description doesn't match the rules as I remember them. During the first session there might be a bit of vagueness because the setting is established collaboratively (what type of apocalypse happened? Severe drought? Meteorite induced winter? Flooding? What are people missing the most? Food? Medicine?  Are we going to play in an replica of an existing city?  This kind of things) and the GM didn't establish the fronts yet. But by the second session he's supposed to have worked out quite a few elements of the setting. I lack the experience to say if the procedures and moves for GMing feel alien by traditional RPG standard but I didn't read anything that pushes story agenda.    

Quote"the MC is invited to go to town and make the most heinous-yet-interesting-for-the-PCs move he can think about"

That's quite broad type of advice. I think it matches the PA genre. For instance the PCs just come back from a scavenging mission just to find their base camp attacked by a gang of brutes out of a Mad Max movie. Or a PC gaining a reputation as a fierce warrior could cross roads with tough guy wannabees hoping to build themselves some fame by fighting him. This kind of idea doesn't seem weird to me. It's post-apocalyptic stuff, it's supposed to feel harsh and challenging.    

Quote"Ask Provocative Questions and Build On The Answers". Are they definitive? Who knows? I'm just giving my impressions from a small amount of information--but that info at least has the advantage of not being filtered through a polemical lens. It's what enthusiasts of the game say about it when they aren't trying to "prove" that "there's no difference between story games and RPGs".

Provocative questions could be like: your people are poor and starving, are you going to ransack the rich town over the hill? I feel Apocalypse World is quite a regular RPG and I don't think you proved the contrary, even by the most hardcore anti-swine criteria.    

QuotePhillip has already handled this. Back-filling explanations for what the dice result means can be done in moderation, or it can happen as a result of a straight-jacket approach designed to prevent the GM from exercising judgment, which in turn flattens the world and turns its details into narrative backdrop for hard issues and PC-centrism.

PC-centrism is part of what AW's nature, no doubt about that, so yeah I wouldn't call it a sandbox game that's sure. Doesn't make it a non-RPG nonetheless.  

QuoteThe first is a binary question, easily resolved. The second presumably is a reference to getting a bonus for invoking a trait, which will then be filtered through a resolution system, the nature of which is undefined. What I was referring to was "A favorite is the Driver. If he rolls poorly after doing the deed, he gets a -1 penalty to everything until he can do something (probably extreme and/or dickish) to prove that 'it's not like she owns me or anything'." I.e., a stereotypical outcome baked-in to the mechanics. Which in a regular RPG would be a result of actually roleplaying, with the freedom that entails.

I don't understand what you tried to say here. I don't remember PC moves that match the descriptions you gave here.

QuoteI was unaware that theRPGsite has said much about this game at all. Or are you BWA in disguise?

Trechriron has expressed his thoughts in a courteous way. Is there a need to call him a sock puppet?

Quote from: Phillip;457329There 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.


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.

Dude, are you trying to launch a rocket or play games? I'd call this WAY overanalyzing this. Sorry if my reasoning and desire to make a distinction doesn't do it for ya, but I think I'll get over it. Oh, and the reason I added Wizard is because ITL states right in the beginning that either Melee and Wizard, or Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard would be needed to use ITL. Got a problem with that, take it up with the authors.

I know very well what "roleplaying" is, been doing it in the context of roleplaying gaming for over 30 years.

During the course of a day I do a great many things that I might be capable of telling a story about. Creating a story for it's own sake is not the same as simply telling a story about all the other things I do. If all a Story Game requires to be a Story Game is for me to be playing a game, then all games are Story Games. That is a fucking retarded definition of Story Game. So, instead, I define Story Games as games who's purpose is to create a story (in a literary sense). What the fuck is so complicated about that? Does it matter what the fuck rules it uses to do that? It might to you, but it doesn't to me. I REALLY think there's a tendency to overthink this shit. I can see with my own eyes the difference between Lady Blackbird and Runequest. Anyone who wants to can stick their heads in the sand about this, but I'm not gonna.

Edit: This comes across as harsher than I actually intended it to. Rather than retype th whole thing I'll just say, feel free to consider me a grumpy douche-bag if you'd like, I'm ok with that. Also, keep in mind I mean no offense by it, I just like swearing... I'm like a preteen that way. I'm ok with that too.

Quote from: trechriron;457330Addendum: 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?

In a way I agree with this. I find the distinction useful for discussing the games, and also find no real "line" per se as it's as much a spectrum as the blending of RPGs with mechanics of other games are. I'm not as hesitant to refrain from making a distinction due to the politics though. Those who hate are gonna hate no matter what label get's stuck on stuff, so I'm just gonna go ahead and use the labels I find most useful.

Quote from: Bill White;457332So 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."

Not really, because there's also the games that use cards in their mechanics to varying degrees. There's also the increasing emphasis the elephant in the gaming room is placing on digital "aids". If one is playing D&D 4e with the character builder, the books in digital form in the DDI, and the virtual tabletop, is one suddenly playing a CRPG? Where do actual CRPGs that are becoming more and more sophisticated come in? How about playing NWN with the multiplayer and DM options?

There's no magical power that games are going to lose if they are designated as something other than a roleplaying game. One can indeed "roleplay" in TMGs if one wants. We used to semi-roleplay when playing Battletech all the time. We'd carry mechs and especially pilots over from one game to the next. Smack talk each other, etc. Really, there's nothing inherently wrong with calling a Story Game "Story Game". It fits. It's the whole point. Run with it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;457339This thread is becoming incoherent.

Lol, that's nothing new Honestly, I'm surprised this thread didn't go down in flames pages ago. It's been extremely refreshing. Indeed I welcome our Story Gaming cousins if they're not just here to troll. I think, despite the fact I disagree with two_fishes quite frequently, he's been a very welcome voice around here. He and folks like him, with opinions and experiences different than mine, help me to grow and also to examine more closely what my own preferences and opinions are and why. I'd love to be able to have more discussions like this that don't automatically devolve into flames and threadcrapping.

Quote from: Phillip;457345In 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.

Not an entirely bad way of putting it, seems to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;457384Nobody said anything about "to experience a story".  You added that on.

True, but I did so because of people's insistence on character playing as a staple of RPGs. It seems to me that you can't play a character, that is enact a role in a roleplaying game, without a story. Outside of nouveau theatre I can't really envision characters absent a story at all.  

QuoteStory is IN NO WAY a goal of RPGs.  Its only a byproduct.

I disagree, but that's fine. Campaigns are stories and adventures vignettes in my opinion; narrative, story, is a fundamental aspect of RPGs that, when lacking, means something other than a roleplaying game is being played. You probably think otherwise, and that's okay.

Quote from: Géza Echs;457392True, but I did so because of people's insistence on character playing as a staple of RPGs. It seems to me that you can't play a character, that is enact a role in a roleplaying game, without a story. Outside of nouveau theatre I can't really envision characters absent a story at all.  



I disagree, but that's fine. Campaigns are stories and adventures vignettes in my opinion; narrative, story, is a fundamental aspect of RPGs that, when lacking, means something other than a roleplaying game is being played. You probably think otherwise, and that's okay.

The difference is in how the story arises. In Story Games, the story is the point. The players go into it with the expectation of building a story collaboratively. Hopefully, the tools the game provides aid in this. In an RPG, the point is to experience and explore a fictional world using the imagination and verbal description of the players. Once again, hopefully, the game provides tools useful for realizing this purpose. Some games blend these goals, and so provide tools to achieving both goals simultaneously.

Quote from: boulet;457385That's quite broad type of advice. I think it matches the PA genre. For instance the PCs just come back from a scavenging mission just to find their base camp attacked by a gang of brutes out of a Mad Max movie. Or a PC gaining a reputation as a fierce warrior could cross roads with tough guy wannabees hoping to build themselves some fame by fighting him. This kind of idea doesn't seem weird to me. It's post-apocalyptic stuff, it's supposed to feel harsh and challenging.    


Provocative questions could be like: your people are poor and starving, are you going to ransack the rich town over the hill? I feel Apocalypse World is quite a regular RPG and I don't think you proved the contrary, even by the most hardcore anti-swine criteria.

You're missing my point, too. It isn't the nature of the fictional stuff I'm talking about. It's the fact that the fictional stuff is improvised on the spot with an eye specifically to its impact on an audience. The world is then unreal, because it has no prior reality, and it acts and reacts based on unreal criteria.    

QuotePC-centrism is part of what AW's nature, no doubt about that, so yeah I wouldn't call it a sandbox game that's sure. Doesn't make it a non-RPG nonetheless.  

PC-centrism is a direction that reduces the RPGness and increases the SGness, if you can at least accept the opposition for the sake of argument. In this schema RPGs entail playing characters from the perspective of those characters; a world that morphs into a shape around the characters' issues is drawing attention to its unreality, and hinders the character-perspective.

QuoteI don't understand what you tried to say here. I don't remember PC moves that match the descriptions you gave here.

I pulled the quote from one of the reviews. But I think I've seen other examples. My point is that the character is stereotyped and abstracted at the psychological and personality level by the mechanics. If he rolls badly, because he's an X, he must react this way.

QuoteTrechriron has expressed his thoughts in a courteous way. Is there a need to call him a sock puppet?

Nope, you failed your comprehension check. See my response to Dan above.

Quote from: Sigmund;457395The difference is in how the story arises.

Or as you suggest, there may not be a story at all, just "experience". The experience could be turned into a story, but it doesn't need to be, any more than a hike in the woods or a baseball game.

Quote from: Sigmund;457386During the course of a day I do a great many things that I might be capable of telling a story about. Creating a story for it's own sake is not the same as simply telling a story about all the other things I do. If all a Story Game requires to be a Story Game is for me to be playing a game, then all games are Story Games. That is a fucking retarded definition of Story Game. So, instead, I define Story Games as games who's purpose is to create a story (in a literary sense).

Exactly!

I'm not "attempting to exercise narrative control" when I roll to resolve an attack in Anzio or The Arab-Israeli Wars, am I? If Géza Echs wants to call those "story games", then it'll sure be news to a lot of wargamers!

I'm not "trying to tell a story", I'm trying immediately to carry an attack, and in the long run to win a battle. Win or lose, I can tell a story about it afterward -- but that's not what's up here and now.

It's no different when I roll to resolve an attack in Dungeons & Dragons or RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip. I roll for the swing of a sword or for a leap clear of a trap.

The Pool (by James V. West) is very different.

The rules text calls the work "a role-playing system geared toward player and GM narrative collaboration", and refers to Traits and Bonuses "that will help you gain narrative control during play." The example character has (among others):

-He is driven by love +2
-Searching for the means to raise his love from the dead +1

In The Pool,

QuoteDice are cast to determine the general outcome of conflicts. This is not the same as rolling when you simply want to take an action. The swing of a sword can be achieved through simple dialogue with the GM, without throwing dice. The effect of a die roll in The Pool is much broader than the swing of a sword.
Anyone can call for a die roll whenever a conflict is apparent or when someone wants to introduce a new conflict. Just broadly state your intention and roll.

I roll for the chance either
(a) to add a dice to my pool (and let the GM narrate a "positive outcome to the conflict"), or
(b) to present a "monologue of victory".

The latter can be quite far reaching.

QuoteYou can describe your character's actions, the actions of those around him, and the outcome of those actions. You can even focus on less direct elements of the conflict such as what's happening in the next room or who's entering the scene.
You can do just about anything. In fact, these are the only real limitations you must observe:
 
1) Don't make alterations to the characters of other players (such as killing them). You can add complications for them and affect the things around them, but don't intrude on the creation of a fellow player.
2) Keep your narration in synch with the established facts and tone of the game. If you need to ask the GM questions or prompt the other players for responses during your MOV, do so.
3) Keep your narration reasonably short.

I think that a useful keynote to determine whether you are storygaming or RPGing is Verisimilitude. A story generated in large part by the players - which Elliot gave examples of above, easily disrupts it - as does being channeled down narrow paths by the game mechanics. The appearance of a living, breathing world, which the players interact with and experience, rather than shape, as well as not being forced down a narrow mechanical path, aids it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;457401I think that a useful keynote to determine whether you are storygaming or RPGing is Verisimilitude.

An account of the action in a very story oriented game may well have more "verisimilitude" than a story of the events in a very role oriented game. At that point -- removed from the actual process of play -- we are dealing with literal story telling in both cases. ("Here is what happened...")

Either could be lacking in verisimilitude because the players are not much concerned with it either in terms of internal consistency and strict adherence to characterization or in terms of touches of apparent randomness.

Only art has verisimilitude; reality has no need for it! There is of course always some art in the creation of a secondary world, even a pure simulation of reality.

It's the process of play that is notably different.