Quote from: JDCorley;458058Hey everyone, hopefully J Arcane has gotten enough enjoyment out of therpgsite over the last 20-odd months that my returning won't bother him too much, so!

This is a topic that gives lots of people lots of problems, and that is because they are trying to classify games instead of classifying play.  This runs into major problems because most games are extremely versatile and have lots of different valid ways to play them.  So it makes more sense to classify "story games" as those games played with an aim at creating a good story.  This includes a lot of D&D play, and a lot of GURPS play, and is not good at all for coming up with a label to stick on a book in a game store.  It is of no use to designers or retailers or people who are Deeply Concerned With The Direction Of The Hobby (or, as they are known to the rest of the world, fucking morons).  But this approach solves absolutely every definitional problem both story-game players and non-story-game players have trying to figure out what's going on.

This definition has thus been completely rejected by everyone, as they prefer to scream at each other or try to make money off each other than to resolve things and actually make progress in discussion.  So when you are reading this, be assured that nobody, absolutely nobody, is listening but you, and this post will go nowhere.  

But let's just use my definition for a little while and see where it gets us:

The first story game I ever played was D&D, and I suspect that it was the same for many people.  D&D is a phenomenal story game. Thousands on thousands of people have played it for decade upon decade, focusing on the creation of a fun story.  Let's take a second to look at why D&D is such an amazing story game.  There are two major story game mechanics in it: first, the distribution of characters to players and the players making decisions on behalf of characters. This is an extremely powerful story mechanic.  Character is the fundamental building block of story.  Without character, there can be no story.  And the most important thing about a character in a story is the decisions they make in the story.  This is 8th grade English, people!  Basically by giving characters individually to the players and saying "you are in charge of this character's decisions", you are giving the players a massive story Lego set and saying "go nuts, build a story".  

The second story mechanic in D&D is the DM, who decides and adjudicates (with the assistance of the rules) the consequences of the characters' decisions.  Character choices can't exist in a vacuum, they must have concrete consequences in the world they inhabit.  By giving the rest of the world over to a single person, a single voice, D&D gives the DM the other piece of story-building.

There are lots of other story-supporting things in D&D: a vivid set of character capabilities, for example. And the supplements had extremely great stuff for story-building: interesting worlds ripe with conflict that the characters would struggle against, and so on.  

That D&D can be played for the story should not be a surprise to anyone who ever looked at, heard of, or thought about Ravenloft, Birthright, Al-Qadim, Dragonlance, or the Forgotten Realms.

Naturally this is not the only way to play D&D, there are other approaches that are just as valid. And I'm not a statistician or anything so I don't know what's more prevalent. But I know tons of D&D play, all editions, has been aimed at story. Any definition of story games that excludes this play is a diseased, stunted definition, to be discarded with great haste.  It leads to people saying if you played Dragonlance, or certain modules, you weren't playing D&D, trying to differentiate between Action Points and a d20 roll, and other such angels-on-pins madness.  Let's instead celebrate that D&D's such a versatile, well-made game (across many editions) that it can easily accommodate many different approaches in a satisfying way, and use my definition to talk about D&D play that aims at story.

Similarly, you can play Dogs in the Vineyard with no real concern for story, treating each town as just the latest in a sandbox full of problems and deploying your character's resources to bull over the problems.  (I've seen this happen, there's a very interesting rules effect of the game that supports this type of play, though it's not discussed in the text.)  The number of sandbox Vampire games I've seen is tremendous.  However, there's no question that Vampire works to support story-oriented play. (By the way, "story-oriented play" is just a shittier way of saying "story gaming".)

I've also seen Primetime Adventures handled more as a means of simulating TV show pacing rather than the creation of an original TV-show-style story, right down to looking at a pile of fanmail in the middle of the table and saying "none of the fans like anything on this show, we're cancelled."

I'm also baffled to hear Universalis called a story game because much of the play of Universalis I've experienced isn't story in any normal sense of the word "story". That's not to say that it isn't a fun game, but many groups use it primarily as a collaborative setting creation system, with characters briefly appearing, acting, then disappearing again as interest turns elsewhere.  There's nothing about that which is like a story at all, Universalis play absolutely need not be shaped by character decisions even to the extent that D&D is.

There are some games that are very difficult to play with a different approach than the designer intended, yep.  Not all games are infinitely flexible. But when we talk about story gaming, we should be talking about play, not what's written on a page somewhere.

Anyway, there you go, back to shooting yourselves in the thread, sorry to have solved your problem so easily. P.S. Storygamers don't like this definition either.  But surely it can't be ME that's wrong?!

Isn't this the same old tired line put forth every time this issue is discussed? I know I have been exposed to the idea before that just because you can "build" a story with any RPG (or, if you think about it, pretty much any game that contains even rudimentary characters and settings such as Life or Monopoly), it automatically follows that RPGs are Story Games. This is incorrect if one defines Story Games as games who's primary purpose is to construct a story, with mechanics directly related to this goal. Simply including a setting and characters does not equate to having the primary goal of constructing a story. Otherwise, even War Games can be considered Story Games. My War of the Ring War Game contained all the characters from Tolkien's tales, and the setting should be at least moderately familiar to most if not all of us here. If that is all that is required to constitute a Story Game, then the definition is useless, as I've pointed out previously. You can attempt to communicate in such a lazy and pointless way if you wish, but do not expect the rest of us to follow suit. Oh, and trying to automatically dismiss any opinions contrary to your own as people just desiring to scream at each other or make money off of each other is also lazy and pointless. It isn't automatically true just because you say so.

The reason we can't define things based on how they're used is because, as you so readily pointed out, they can be used for all kinds of things that may or may not have anything to do with what they were intended for. I can use my stack of Runequest books to allow my son to sit high enough to reach the table at dinner, but that doesn't make them a booster seat. We define things based on the purpose they were created to fulfil. I define my Miata as a transportation device because it was created to transport one or two human beings from one place to another. Just because it also serves as a large, sexy, wheeled case for my Bose stereo doesn't automatically mean it's really a giant ghetto blaster.

Hopefully you don't truly believe you've solved any problem at all, let alone "our" problem. My advice... go back to the drawing board, you have a long way to go yet.

Quote from: Sigmund;458074Isn't this the same old tired line put forth every time this issue is discussed?

Yes, it is.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;458056I'd agree with John that it's lacking. Lots of people prefer to describe their character's actions in the third-person and do so because they prefer to maintain a psychological distance from them. They prefer to see "Bob the Fighter" as a concept separate from themselves which they can analyze and/or interrogate. They are still focused on making decision as if the decisions were made by Bob, but they don't make those decisions from a first-person perspective.

There's a similar divide in acting theory.

I'd argue that it doesn't matter how the player describes the action of his character -- in an RPG, he's still experiencing the setting from a first-person perspective. He sees what Bob sees. He only controls what Bob does. He doesn't get to define the outcomes of Bob's actions or to decide what happens to Bob next.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;458082I'd argue that it doesn't matter how the player describes the action of his character -- in an RPG, he's still experiencing the setting from a first-person perspective. He sees what Bob sees. He only controls what Bob does. He doesn't get to define the outcomes of Bob's actions or to decide what happens to Bob next.

Or (in my opinion) know beforehand the outcome of a given course of action of Bob's beyond what he can discern based on what Bob knows. This is part of what I was talking about earlier regarding explicit stakes vs. apparent stakes.

Quote from: Sigmund;458074Isn't this the same old tired line put forth every time this issue is discussed? I know I have been exposed to the idea before that just because you can "build" a story with any RPG (or, if you think about it, pretty much any game that contains even rudimentary characters and settings such as Life or Monopoly)

Monopoly does not contain any characters and you do not make any decisions on their behalf. You only decide whether or not to buy something.  In Monopoly, you are not a hat. Read the rules.  

Life has very rudimentary characters and very rudimentary choices, but if you don't see how the mechanics of Life are trying to produce a very rudimentary story of a person's Life, I don't think you've looked at it closely!

"Aha, wouldn't what you say apply to Life as well?!" I have no problem with calling Life a story game, though a very rudimentary one. In fact anyone who has looked at Life and thought about how its theme and mechanics use a "life story" to motivate play would absolutely call it a story game.  So pretty much your example proves me right in every way forever.

There are many non-RPG story games.  The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Penny For My Thoughts, Once Upon A Time...tons.

Quoteit automatically follows that RPGs are Story Games. This is incorrect if one defines Story Games as games who's primary purpose is to construct a story, with mechanics directly related to this goal.

Wait, I thought you just howled to the heavens that we can't define the purpose of a game because, as I said and you admitted, games can be put to so many purposes and many games are extremely versatile.  What is the "purpose" of GURPS? What is the "purpose" of Call of Cthulhu?  (This last one is a land mine, watch out that your legs don't get blown off.)  When both Ravenloft and Greyhawk are D&D, what is the "purpose" of D&D?

QuoteSimply including a setting and characters does not equate to having the primary goal of constructing a story. Otherwise, even War Games can be considered Story Games.

War games are an interesting area that I don't have a ton of experience with, but if you're saying that "isn't it possible, JDCorley, that under your definition, two people could play a wargame and you would call their play story gaming?" then yes, I have to say that is possible. Are you saying it's impossible, that it cannot be done, that we must shut our eyes and scream rather than imagine two people doing that?

Have you heard of simulation exercises?  These are similar to wargames in that they are used for training, though they tend to be more along the lines of political science and diplomatic training.  Here's an example from March 2010.  Now, obviously, the purpose of such an exercise is not to create a good story, but to educate the participants and evaluate the responses and systems and so on, but I can certainly imagine a LARP that has elements of simulations or wargames that would unquestionably be a story game.  (Some of these simulations even use fanciful elements like a True-Blood style vampire population "outing" or a zombie outbreak in order to enhance the responses...pretty fun stuff.)

QuoteHopefully you don't truly believe you've solved any problem at all, let alone "our" problem. My advice... go back to the drawing board, you have a long way to go yet.

You are the one who decides to choose for yourself an ignorant and foolish definition, when I have given you one that will work perfectly in every situation.  I am not injured by your decision, it is only yourself that is harmed. What can I do but shake my head sadly and project unending waves of pity across the globe?

Quote from: JDCorley;458058This is a topic that gives lots of people lots of problems, and that is because they are trying to classify games instead of classifying play.  This runs into major problems because most games are extremely versatile and have lots of different valid ways to play them.  So it makes more sense to classify "story games" as those games played with an aim at creating a good story. This includes a lot of D&D play,

Two problems here.

First, let's accept your premise that D&D and other roleplaying games are "played with an aim at creating a good story". So now we can sub-categorize RPGs as "story games". Unfortunately, that still leaves us needing a term to describe all those games featuring narrative control mechanics. Up until now, the fanbase and industry seems to have slowly been settling on the term "story game" to uniquely describe those games. But now you've confused the issue.

Second, let's analyze your premise that D&D and other roleplaying games are "played with an aim at creating a good story". That may be true for some people, but it's not true for everybody. It's not true for me. It wasn't true for Gygax or Arneson. So we're forced to conclude that, using your defintions, a roleplaying game is occasionally a "story game" but frequently it's not.

Given these two realities, I think we can safely conclude that your definition of "story game" is not particularly informative and frequently inaccurate. This makes it the very opposite of what a good definition is supposed to accomplish.

Ergo, I reject your definition.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;458082I'd argue that it doesn't matter how the player describes the action of his character -- in an RPG, he's still experiencing the setting from a first-person perspective. He sees what Bob sees. He only controls what Bob does. He doesn't get to define the outcomes of Bob's actions or to decide what happens to Bob next.

True, but that is also true from the perspective of many story games.  I suggested A Flower For Mara and The Mothers earlier, but there's plenty more.  Apocalypse World may be a silly and immature - but it is generally considered a story game both here and in the Story Games community, and as a player one only controls what your PC does.  

Quote from: Sigmund;458074I know I have been exposed to the idea before that just because you can "build" a story with any RPG (or, if you think about it, pretty much any game that contains even rudimentary characters and settings such as Life or Monopoly), it automatically follows that RPGs are Story Games. This is incorrect if one defines Story Games as games who's primary purpose is to construct a story, with mechanics directly related to this goal.

As for what the term "story game" means, one can form many different and yet still consistent definitions.  The definition currently used on the Story Games web forum is inclusive of traditional RPGs as well as non-traditional games.  

If you want to instead classify them as separate from traditional RPGs, you can indeed redefine the term.  What you suggest is classifying by intent - i.e. what is the game's purpose.  A potential problem with this is that a many traditional RPGs clearly say that their purpose is to construct stories - like Vampire: The Masquerade and many more.  You can say that they're wrong or lying, but then how do you tell what the purpose of the game really is?  

In practice, I think most people's definition of traditional RPGs is based on a host of similarities: having a game-master, players with player characters, stats and mechanics, adventuring/combat focus, and so forth.  If it isn't like this but still involves roles and fiction, then chances are that it'll be called a "story game".

Quote from: Justin Alexander;458122Unfortunately, that still leaves us needing a term to describe all those games featuring narrative control mechanics. Up until now, the fanbase and industry seems to have slowly been settling on the term "story game" to uniquely describe those games. But now you've confused the issue.

Just to point out, this isn't a new idea that JDCorley just came up with.  On the Story Games board for years now, the posted definition of "story game" is inclusive of traditional RPGs.  

There's been an ambiguity about terms basically since the beginning.  When Ron Edwards and Clinton Nixon started The Forge around 2000, it was about "indie RPGs" - which in principle meant any RPG published independently, including traditional ones.  In his early essays, Ron would refer to games like Arrowflight as "indie".  

The term "story game" became common with Andy Kitkowsky starting the Story Games forum.  His original definition was games that "focused more on our story and less on my character" - but he later changed that, reflecting many posters sentiment that didn't draw that line.  Most indie RPGs continue to label themselves as "role-playing games" and not as "story games" - even if they have narrative control mechanics.

Not that I would use pure intent as a criterion, but the example of Vampire etc. isn't a particularly good one. Story games not only use the word "story" here and there but they also state pretty clearly what they mean in terms of how story will be constructed/achieved. I'm less familiar with WW games like Vampire but I think their intent is expressed beyond the simple use of the word "story", and it's different from story games.

Also, John, I'm not sure what you're getting at by talking about inclusiveness and separation. Logically, even if all story games are RPGs, it's still possible that there are RPGs which aren't story games, and it's only a matter of semantics whether you call that "complementary" group "RPGs", "traditional RPGs", or whatever.

Finally, although I agree with you that structural characteristics are best way to (subjectively) articulate the difference between "story games" and "traditional RPGs", there is a link between structure and how players see themselves in relation to their characters--and there's a fairly consistent correlation between this subjective impression, and whether/how one makes the subjective distinction between "story games" and "traditional RPGs".

As I wrote above, Apocalypse World may be closer to a "traditional RPG" than previous designs by Vincent Baker, particularly because it apparently concentrates more discretionary authority in the hands of the GM, but based on reviews, it still has a number of structural characteristics that pull it in the "story game" direction. For example although it seems that players don't exercise "narrative control" outside of their own characters' attempts to do things, there's still the abstraction of activity into "moves", the absence of situational modifiers, stereotyped/formalized/dissociated social outcomes, and story-motivated improv codified into the rules. If these are accurate descriptions of elements of the game, then it shouldn't be hard to understand or predict that a fan of trad games--especially someone who liked the "sandbox/world in motion" style as opposed to the Dragonlance/WW "storytelling" style--would see AW as offering a somewhat story-like experience compared to the games they're used to.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;458122Two problems here.

First, let's accept your premise that D&D and other roleplaying games are "played with an aim at creating a good story". So now we can sub-categorize RPGs as "story games". Unfortunately, that still leaves us needing a term to describe all those games featuring narrative control mechanics.

I got one! How about we call them "games featuring narrative control mechanics!"  

By the way, do you think D&D doesn't have a narrative control mechanic?  What do you think Armor Class is if not a mechanic to control when characters and monsters are struck successfully enough to cause damage? Do you think that this might not be an important piece of a  narrative, when a character is struck and when they successfully strike monsters?

QuoteSecond, let's analyze your premise that D&D and other roleplaying games are "played with an aim at creating a good story". That may be true for some people, but it's not true for everybody.

Since in my definition I say that this is absolutely true, I'm glad you agree with me.

QuoteIt's not true for me. It wasn't true for Gygax or Arneson. So we're forced to conclude that, using your defintions, a roleplaying game is occasionally a "story game" but frequently it's not.

Agreed, that's exactly what I said, picture perfect, 100 percent, you agree with me.

Quote from: jhkim;457976I suspect that around here it would be called a story game rather than a traditional RPG.  cf. A Flower for Mara...

And since the company's own page calls it

Quote from: Linked PageA Flower for Mara is an improvisational play about death, loss, grief, and hope.

, why should we call it an RPG?

So many games seem to be on the boarders of these divides.

Ace of Hearts which I've just reviewed is advertised as a Story Game but it's more like a card/boardgame with narrative elements.

Quote from: CRKrueger;458148And since the company's own page calls it
, why should we call it an RPG?

I've been absent from the debate because generally speaking, the necessity to establish a rigid divide between "storygame" and "RPG" divide strikes me as very, very silly.

But I'm going to side with Krueger on this. Some of the games to come out from The Forge and its alumni, like Polaris or A Flower For Mara, have clearly crossed into something else entirely. They have scripts, for God's sake. Lines you're supposed to recite. Now in my book that can't possibly be a RPG (compare to the Dying Earth RPG which rewards characters for inserting Jack Vance quotes).

I think a lot of these so-called "storygames" games as RPGs; they're just RPGs which don't tickle my fancy. And I do think that some of these games have crossed into not-RPG territory. But it's less of a "line" and more of a spectrum.

Since jhkim can't be arsed to make his case for himself, can anyone else explain

1) why we should consider "A Flower For Mara" and "The Mothers" to be story games

and

2) why we should simultaneously consider them to be "from a first person perspective" (thereby supposedly "falsifying" Dan Davenport's characterization)?

I think Dan hit the bullseye, in terms of the different experiences produced by design in the games that I would care to distinguish. Role-playing games focus on the role ("first person"), story games on the story ("third person").

It's the people who address their miniatures in second person who are really out there.

Quote from: jhkim;458130Apocalypse World may be a silly and immature - but it is generally considered a story game both here and in the Story Games community, and as a player one only controls what your PC does.

So far, jhkim does not impress me as a reliable source on such matters.

Are both bold statements true?

If so, then why is it "a story game"?