I'm glad to see that everyone still agrees with me.

Quote from: Aos;458346I'm glad to see that everyone still agrees with me.

Yeah, you really should have a doctor check that out.

Quote from: dekaranger;458210Vampire:TM was a number cruncher?  You and I must have different views of number crunching.

Oh, right. They're not numbers, they're dots or some such twaddle.

After all, it's not as if how many you have ever really matters, right?

Quote from: Phillip;458348Oh, right. They're not numbers, they're dots or some such twaddle.

After all, it's not as if how many you have ever really matters, right?

Simple addition is hard for some people, I guess.

Quote from: misterguignol;458351Simple addition is hard for some people, I guess.

Only when it's called what it is, I guess. Pile up more pages of rules and factors and formulas and more dice rolls -- but talk up "storytelling" enough -- and suddenly it's the guys with the little booklets who are guilty of being "roll players".

It's brilliant, like Apple's marketing of its MacIntosh plan of conformity as "rebellion" against the anarchic PC market (which gets cast as the real single-proprietor, lack-of-choice world).

Quote from: JDCorley;458341As I say, people can shift gameplay experiences through their emphasis of different aspects of the game very easily, so I don't disagree with you, in fact what you just said is exactly what I have said all along, that it is the approach to the material that matters, it is the approach which can be fruitfully classified. After all, if you can even play Monopoly as a story game, haven't we just proven that using "story game" as a label for products, instead of approaches, is foolish? Naturally we have. We are in full agreement, I'm glad you've come to see it my way.

Now you are being disingeneous. I have never disagreed that people can do whatever they want with whatever they want, and often do. That's precisely why it's useless as a method of classification. So many thing can be done with a given thing, trying to classify it using them all is ridiculous. What we have actually proven is that I am right and that it makes much more sense to classify a thing based on it's intended purpose, otherwise it would take all day just to mention a thing in conversation. You can contend otherwise until the stars fall from the sky, but the fact remains for all to see.

QuoteNot at all, you have made no points, you have offered nothing whatsoever, I by contrast have given excellent reasons to accept my point of view, and everything you have claimed as a counterexample has indeed supported my point of view more and torn yours further and further down.

Here you reveal exactly where the difficulty lies. You don't know what a point is. You seem to be completely ignorant of how to construct an argument, or provide a counter to someone else's. Hell, you reveal here you can't even recognise an argument when you see one. I would recommend furthering your education, it will help you immensely in discussions such as these.

QuoteI did not say that, in fact I said the opposite, that I felt there were many games which would be impossible to be used as story games. Anyone can see that you are just making this allegation up, by paging up the thread. You are just inventing this out of thin air!

Actually, what you said was "People are very ingenious and can always make changes to the games they play by shifting emphasis from different areas of the game, so I am very cautious in saying yes, but in, the end, yes." I indeed exaggerated slightly, but only slightly, since you seem hesitant to even answer the question, which seems to indicate that you believe it might be possible for someone to use any game as a story game. Otherwise, I would think there would be no hesitation and you would have answered with a resounding, and most likely flowery, negative response. My exaggeration did require a small amount of assumption, but not much.

QuoteAnd you would say that someone who did this was not playing a story game, right? You would say that story did not enter into it, and that when discussing this particular play, it would be fruitless to talk about story, and that such a person who has arranged their entire chess experience around the development of this story has nevertheless failed to engage in a story game, that they have not done anything story related at all, that they are just playing chess, and if they want to improve their experience, they should just talk to people who play chess without all of that and never speak to anyone else who is interested in story, or who knows something about story, or who might think this was a cool idea, and that nobody could accept or reject this approach to chess based on whether or not they liked playing a game aiming at story.

Once again you reveal your confusion. "Story" and "story game", in my opinion, are not the same thing. One can have labels for styles of game play that are separate from labels for types of games/mechanics. the two are not mutually exclusive. You are allowing your prejudice to color your interpretation of what I am writing. You are reading things I did not write.

QuoteThat's what you're saying when you say that the approach to the game doesn't matter, that it is of no consequence, that we cannot classify story gaming in such a way.

Prove it. I see no reason why there can not be both "story gaming" and "story games".

QuoteI've seen it done!

So then you do know what I'm saying and you really are being disingenuous.

QuoteThere are many ways of playing D&D that is not story gaming, as I said before and which others then leapt on and shouted "Ah HA, JDC, don't you know there are many ways of playing D&D that are not story gaming?!"!? as if this would be some great shock to me.

I was not among those people.

QuoteI can't make up your mind for you, naturally.

Obviously. You apparently can't even present an actual argument. If you could, you would at least have a shot at influencing my opinion, but as long as you can't or won't all you're doing here is threadcrapping.

QuoteNo, but it makes your discussion truncated and useless, all your statements suspect and it leads you into bizarre blind alleys where you reply to "hey, isn't dialogue a cool method for building story" with "OH YEAH BUT THATS NOT ALL IT CAN BE USED FOR HUH IS IT", when that is absolutely irrelevant to anyone who is thinking or talking about dialogue, story or gaming.

Well, you keep saying this, but you haven't shown how. How is my definition making my discussion "truncated and useless"? Show me these blind alleys you are referring to. Provide actual examples rather then ephemeral wisps of unrealised imagination that you keep trying to shove on everyone as representing truth. I can't think of one thing I've ever encountered... not one... nope, can't think of anything at all anywhere ever than can only be used for one and only one thing. Perhaps when you are talking to other people and you are using nouns such as "story" as if they described conditions rather than tangible things, referring to story games in the way I do is somehow this horrible thing you're making it out to be, although I can't see how that would be true and you seem incapable of using actual examples. However, we're not presently posting in that place, or discussing things in that way. We're here, at theRPGsite, discussing things in a way we understand. By all means eschew my definition if you will, I'm not holding  gun to your head. However, do not think you can come here and start spouting bullshit and expect us to just bow to your imagined brilliance.

Quote(There are no choices in Candyland, but let's say you hacked the rules to make it a story game.)

So you need mechanical choices to create dialogue or characters?

QuoteI would, using my definition, be absolutely clear that you played a game with an eye to creating a story. You played with an intent to create a story.

As would I. I don't need to call Candyland a "story game" in order to discuss using it to create a story. I can say, "I created a story using a board game called Candyland." This would tell someone what I was using (Candyland), what that is (a board game), and what I did with it (created a story). Your problem with this is?  

QuoteWhat a great, communicative thing to tell me about your play!

Indeed. So go ahead and do it.

QuoteWhereas by contrast if we use your definition, all that I know is that you played a game that someone somewhere has stuck a label on. It tells me nothing about the experience of your play, your goals in playing it, or your intent in playing it.  When I want to know about your play, I want you to tell me about your goals and experience, not about what purchases are on your credit card statement.

Wrong. Based on my statement above, you know that what I experienced was a game of Candyland, basically what that constitutes (using a board and most likely pieces, and some sort of random element), and why I did it (to create a story). Notice, I was able to use the most commonly accepted label for the thing called Candyland (board game), yet still communicate that I used it to create a story (by, you know, saying "I used it to create a story"). I can then elaborate about the details of the experience in further discussion, which you would also have to do anyway, unless you're trying to tell me that the label "story game", used your way, includes in and of itself all the details and nuances of how you went about doing whatever it is you did. Not buying that.

QuoteNonsense, completely untrue. Armor Class and Hit Points in D&D are different from Willpower Points in Storyteller games, are different from Artha in Burning Wheel games, are different from Aspects in With Great Power, are different from Issues in Primetime Adventures.  All can be used with the goal of creating story.

A great many things can be used with the goal to create a story. That does not mean they were designed specifically to create a story. A screwdriver makes a great tool for opening a can of paint too. We've been over this, move on already.

Quote from: Sigmund;458365Now you are being disingeneous. I have never disagreed that people can do whatever they want with whatever they want, and often do. That's precisely why it's useless as a method of classification.

"When trying to classify what people do, it's disingenuous to ask us to look at what they do."

QuoteActually, what you said was "People are very ingenious and can always make changes to the games they play by shifting emphasis from different areas of the game, so I am very cautious in saying yes, but in, the end, yes." I indeed exaggerated slightly, but only slightly, since you seem hesitant to even answer the question, which seems to indicate that you believe it might be possible for someone to use any game as a story game. Otherwise, I would think there would be no hesitation and you would have answered with a resounding, and most likely flowery, negative response. My exaggeration did require a small amount of assumption, but not much.

No, you just made it up out of whole cloth, but I won't harp on it, everyone in the thread can see you invented it out of nothing, there's no need to discuss it further.

QuoteOnce again you reveal your confusion. "Story" and "story game", in my opinion, are not the same thing.

Agreed!

QuoteOne can have labels for styles of game play that are separate from labels for types of games/mechanics.

Also agreed!

QuoteProve it. I see no reason why there can not be both "story gaming" and "story games".

To me, it would make the most sense to have "story games" be the things that produce "story gaming."  Otherwise we enter Forge-style jargon territory, where "narrativism" has nothing to do with narrative, "simulationism" has nothing to do with simulation, "the impossible thing before breakfast" is neither impossible, nor a thing, nor before breakfast, and "advocacy" is not advocacy.  But if you want to concoct a new piece of jargon and advance it, I can't argue that there isn't an audience for such things.

QuoteWell, you keep saying this, but you haven't shown how. How is my definition making my discussion "truncated and useless"? Show me these blind alleys you are referring to.

Anyone can see it, they just have to look up the thread. I said "hey, dialogue, there's an example of a rule in D&D that can help someone interested in story" and you said "oh well it can help all kinds of other people too", as if that had anything to do with the point I was making at all.

Let's discuss this a little further, actually this is one of the most important story game rules in roleplaying games, the rule of "who gets to say what the characters say".

The GM says: "The king looks very grave. 'The orc attacks are still on the rise. We must find out what demonic force is compelling them to attack.'"

Player A, in this situation, says, "My guy spins his dagger around his fingers and flips it nonchalantly into its sheath. 'No problem, amigo.' he says confidently, 'We'll handle the orcs and you handle setting up the victory celebration. Gentlemen prefer blondes, so why don't you have a lot of redheads on hand?'"

Player B, in this situation, says, "My guy lowers his head somberly, 'So many have been lost, my liege. We must do everything we can!'"

Both players are utilizing a rule in D&D that says that players get to decide what their characters say and how they say it.  In fact they are using that rule in a very similar way - they're both using third-person narration and directly saying the words the character would say.  However, they are creating very different moods and experiences by their choice of what to say in this situation.  

Now, if you're not playing for story, there's no reason why one of these is preferable to the other. Plenty of D&D games I've been in, this choice doesn't matter at all.  It's just color, or maybe we're exploring a social situation and seeing-what-happens, we're not really concerned with story stuff.

But if you are concerned with story, the rule that players get to say what their character says is probably the most powerful tool to directly affect the narrative ever devised by the mind of man.  This is because the expression of character through dialogue is so well-developed throughout the history of literature.

So when you try to divide mechanics into those that "directly affect the narrative" and those that don't, and divide games up based on whether they have such mechanics or not, you've already gone right past the real question which is whether the narrative is of interest to the players at all.  If the answer is that it's not, then you aren't story gaming no matter what choices you make.  If the answer is that it is, you are story gaming no matter what mechanics you use to affect the narrative.

QuoteWe're here, at theRPGsite, discussing things in a way we understand.

The thread stands as a monument to the unbelievable wrongness of this statement.

I'm going to build the world's largest castle using only the text walls from this thread.

Quote from: Aos;458389I'm going to build the world's largest castle using only the text walls from this thread.

Ok, that's what will happen if you succeed, what will the consequences of your failure be for this task resolution test?

Quote from: CRKrueger;458398Ok, that's what will happen if you succeed, what will the consequences of your failure be for this task resolution test?

Does it have something to do with unicorns?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;458272Not quite.

For me:

The GM is the facilitator/ referee.

The players assume a role in an imagined gamespace and react to fictional stimuli.

The story evolves from the process of that taking place.

Well said. Better put than I did.

Quote from: misterguignol;458351Simple addition is hard for some people, I guess.

Yeah anybody who thinks it is a 'number cruncher' must have led a very rpg sheltered life or had a GM who rolled everything for them.

See folks, I'm not responsible for every flame war around here.

Quote from: Sigmund;458365Now you are being disingeneous. I have never disagreed that people can do whatever they want with whatever they want, and often do. That's precisely why it's useless as a method of classification.

It's like classifying a hammer as a cooking utensil because you saw a guy use one to break open eggs back in college.

Quote from: JDCorley;458281

QuoteYou're using a particularly stupid and particularly non-useful definition of "narrative". Why is that?

Because it is the definition that has been developed over hundreds of years of literature. Did you not pay attention in 8th grade English?

Ah. It's because you don't realize what you're doing. Got it.

Hint: When you're using a definition of "narrative" which would result in describing Newton's Laws as a model of narrative, your definition is wacky.

Quote

QuoteI'm glad to hear that you agree that your definitions are useless.

What?!

You're the one who said it. Try to keep up.

Odd how some storygame authors have spent years creating dividing lines in the hobby in order to make themselves sound different to the mainstream (and been fucking insulting about it, to boot) and this is perfectly fine to their fans, yet when someone else has the timerity to discuss a different dividing line to these self-styled auteurs, some of the fans of said authors cry bloody murder.