Quote from: JDCorley;458501Nope, I'm still a hundred percent right. Story gaming is gameplay that aims at story.  Story games are games played aiming at story. Narrative is story. Simple.

Not so simple. What about story games that have elements that troll in interactive gamers by providing segments or encounters  that require more than simple narrative to resolve, and then switch back to narrative.

Games I can think of like this.... Exalted. Burning Wheel. Dogs in the Vineyard. It's precisely this element that allows them to enjoy the status of being hotly disputed.

Creating grey areas where there was none before is a specialty of the Forge gamers. They do this in order to shift the goal and focus, only in small increments until suddenly one finds oneself in untenable or unconscionable gameplay territory.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Like, are you saying there are mechanics and rules that are focused on character capabilities, and then there are other mechanics that go beyond character capabilities?  And games have various mixtures of these rules?  Yes, that's true, very true, but I don't see what it has to do with whether someone is playing a game with the intent of creating a story.  

Someone might very well say "I create the best stories when I am focused on fighting as hard as I can for my character's point of view, expressing that character in the situation they find themselves without having any input into the situation", and someone else might say "I think collaboration is a good idea, I write my D&D character's background even though he was only a baby at the time and couldn't control what his father or mother did, that way I can set up my character to do the things I want them to do in the story" and others still say "I really want this relationship to be exactly right, so I will play both the wizard and your wizard's roguish apprentice, like in Ars Magica" and so on.  All these people would be story gaming.  (Naturally others who don't have that goal would not.)

Quote from: JDCorley;458379Now, if you're not playing for story, there's no reason why one of these is preferable to the other.

But if I were playing for story, then one would be? Which one?

Playing for the fun of role-playing and exploration, with no concern for story, what is preferable is whatever is more appropriate for the role and situation.

Quote from: Phillip;458510But if I were playing for story, then one would be? Which one?

Well, one would be better if you wanted a swashbuckling story of dashing, confident heroes and wisecracking rogues, and the other would be better if you wanted a somber, serious gloom-an'-doom fantasy adventure.  Story gamers talk about this kind of thing all the time, how to do dialogue better, how to express characters better, how to get cooler situations to put characters in, and so on.

QuotePlaying for the fun of role-playing and exploration, with no concern for story, what is preferable is whatever is more appropriate for the role and situation.

That's totally valid, and not story gaming, even if you're playing Dogs in the Vineyard!

Quote from: dekaranger;458408Yeah 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.

Don't be so silly.

It is only you who used the phrase, so quite apart from any question of how peculiar your definition may be there is the plain fact of its irrelevance.

What I wrote was

Quote from: meHere we have a big book full of number crunching rules that look like the trappings of a "traditional RPG".

"Number crunching" conventionally refers to doing calculations, especially (but not exclusively) with the implication of numerous calculations, and especially when one finds them tedious. They may individually be quite simple.

That the Vampire game entails numerous calculations is evident. That RPGs as a class tend to do so seems likewise uncontroversial.

Quote from: meWhat we instruct you, oh Storyteller, actually to do with them is to ignore or subvert them as often as they may interfere with railroading players along your plot line.

Lest we forget, that was the point of mentioning the "big book full of rules". The attitude conveyed in Vampire and, e.g., Legend of the Five Rings is repulsive to many of us besides the "narrativist" Forge types!

Quote from: JDCorley;458507I'm not sure what you mean?

Like, are you saying there are mechanics and rules that are focused on character capabilities, and then there are other mechanics that go beyond character capabilities?  And games have various mixtures of these rules?  Yes, that's true, very true, but I don't see what it has to do with whether someone is playing a game with the intent of creating a story.  

With story games the rules are focused on creating a story, or tale. Some story games take the approach of focusing on the GM as the storyteller, and some focus on both GM and player, and some focus exclusively on the players to virtually exclude or render the GM role irrelevant.

The problem that almost invariably crops up with this, is that any social group will fragment and polarize around two or more concepts or goals within the game. This adds an unintended conflict to the game that often interferes with the built in conflicts that have predetermined reward and play cycles.

With a traditional RPG, the GM is supposed to serve as a neutral arbiter. When the group disagrees, not just about goals and achievements in the game, but in the direction of the story, The GM is obligated to step in and make an ad-hoc ruling, just so that the story, and the opportunities that the players have to continue creating their unique story (And not the GM's) may proceed. The GM is obligated to do this in a entertaining manner, and in fact, the best GM's can with the introduction of some additional detail, not only do it in an entertaining manner, but add drama and focus for the players. A good GM stimulates the imagination of the players, and evokes the motivation and desire of players to immerse themselves in the details of the game world to expand on the story.


Not always though. Some really competent GMs place the focus on the story that they want to tell, instead of the story their players should be creating. In the end, this does more damage to the RPG player base than any other thing, with one exception, and that is if any player comes to the table for the purpose of derailing the story the remainder of the players are focused on creating.

Derailing a story is the same thing as GM railroading, except that it is not done by a GM, it accomplished at the hands of (usually) just one or two players.

A story told by the players, with a GM serving properly as arbitrater, is narrative, however it is not a story game. It is a collective experience that enriches all the players participating, because together, they create a better story than they could tell as individuals, or as part of another similar but dysfunctional group.

Everyone comes to the game with the intent of creating a story. The question is, what kind of story is getting created, and is it entertaining?

I strongly disagree. What you are saying is that this might be a reasonable postmortem for a game:

"The play of this game created a great story. The players were really focused on making the story good by making the characters vivid and taking decisive action in response to the situations they found themselves in. The GM made the story good by making the world interesting and by responding to the players' interests, resolving conflicts between player interests and altogether everyone enriched the narrative.  The game supported this by dividing the labor between players and GMs, providing mechanics to provide surprising results, and assisting everyone in staying on the same page and keeping the course. But this is not a story game. Under no circumstances must this play, in which everyone was focused on creating a story, and which indeed did produce a story satisfying to them, be labeled with the word 'story'. We must under no circumstances permit the word 'story' to be attached to this game.  In fact, the successful creation of story makes me suspect that this cannot be a 'story game'."

Sorry, but I don't think that's a good way of defining the situation.

Also this:

QuoteEveryone comes to the game with the intent of creating a story.

is just not true. As I said, (and as many screamed at me, thinking I had not just said that), there are plenty of valid ways of playing RPGs or other games that do not aim at creating a story.

Quote from: JDCorley;458494I don't mean to repeat myself, but I have to insist because you really are not reading what I'm writing. Certainly it's relevant to the narrative if someone gets hit, right? We can describe it in many ways, sure, but that doesn't change the mechanic, or its impact on a story someone is trying to experience or tell, does it?

It's relevant, but does not directly control the details of the narration of the result, so yes, being able to describe it in many ways could indeed change the impact the result has on the story one is trying to create, if one were trying to create a story.

QuoteI'm not saying people can't interpret/utilize the mechanic in different ways, or that every person who uses that mechanic is using it to create a narrative.  I have never said that and anyone who has read this thread knows I haven't ever said that.  In fact I have denied these things multiple times.

Ok.

QuoteI'm only saying that hit points and armor class and so on directly control the question of whether someone gets hit in D&D, and that can be a relevant part of the narrative. Surely you agree with me!  Then, when I am a story gamer, D&D's combat system can absolutely support my desires to aim at story when I play. So can its dialogue rules, and the role of the GM, and the city/faction creation rules, and the magic rules, and so on.

Not really, no. Hit points and AC describe whether someone has been injured, either directly or through being winded/fatigued, depending on how the players in question are interpreting the hp/ac rules. Especially in the case of the highly abstract hps, the actual story being created, if one were using D&D to create a story, could be narrated in number of ways that would remain consistent with the mechanical outcome. Thing is, anything can aim at a creating a story, if you are bound and determined to use it for that. However, some games have better tools for the job than the ones D&D provides. Hence, the plethora of story games that have been written.

QuoteThose before me called it "story oriented play", but ugh, "oriented"?!  Ugh.  My definition is extremely precise. I don't know how much play it encompasses, because I don't know how much of the hobby plays aiming at story. Some people think it's a lot, some people think it's a tiny minority? I don't know. How do you know so many people play aiming at story, far too many people in far too many ways for my definition to be useful? You say it's too encompassing, okay, show me! What percentage of people play, say, D&D3/Pathfinder aiming at story?

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with "story oriented play". It tells you all you need to know about the overall purpose of the activity of the players. Your definition doesn't tell you how much of the hobby plays aiming at creating a story either. It pretends that everyone is, thereby dodging the entire question. Once again, just because you wish with all your little heart that everyone were story gaming, that doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, I have to answer your question with a question, because I'm truly baffled. Who fucking cares what percentage of people play anything with the goal of creating a story? What does that have to do with the classification of the games themselves? It's a strawman you're setting up for who knows what reason. If you can show me where I've even hinted at mentioning anything about how many people play anything, I'll answer your question seriously. Really? I'm starting to think you don't speak English as a native language. Your definition isn't useful in talking about gaming. These definitions have nothing to do with actually playing games. They have to do with talking about games. Therefore, it's SO not relevant how many people are playing D&D with the goal of creating a story. It is nothing more than how to describe that activity when talking about it. A more relevant question would be, how many people are talking about using D&D to create a story, but even that doesn't really matter. When folks are playing D&D (or anything else for that matter) with the goal of creating a story, do you honestly think what you or I call the game they're using, or the activity in which they are engaging, makes any difference to them at all?

Quote from: GameDaddy;458497Actually. He does. And it is his story game. Peyton's story that he wants to tell. I remember one time in a pre-season game against the Bengals, Coach Dungee benched Peyton Manning and the Colts lost. Oh, #18 was pissed. He really hates losing you know? Even in a pre-season game.

He knew, if he could have got out there and thrown a few passes he could have got the Colts turned around, but it wasn't to be that day.

The very next game between the two was a season defining game.  The colts were 2-1 and the Bengals were also 2-1 and they were facing each other again. This time, Coach Dungee told Manning, give it everything you got, and cut him loose on the field, reminding him of how the Bengals had humiliated his team without him. The colts blew out the Bengals something like 51-17 and went on to their first super bowl win with Manning leading the team.

What about all the rest of the players on both sides? Do they not get stories too? I'm sure the opposing QB (and all the other players too for that matter) wanted to win just as badly. You definition of "story" leaves alot to be desired.

Quote from: JDCorley;458501Nope, I'm still a hundred percent right. Story gaming is gameplay that aims at story.  Story games are games played aiming at story. Narrative is story. Simple.

If by 100 percent right you mean completely wrong, you've nailed it. Narrative is the narrated portion of a story. Look it up. Apparently not so simple after all.

Quote from: JDCorley;458514Well, one would be better if you wanted a swashbuckling story of dashing, confident heroes and wisecracking rogues, and the other would be better if you wanted a somber, serious gloom-an'-doom fantasy adventure.  Story gamers talk about this kind of thing all the time, how to do dialogue better, how to express characters better, how to get cooler situations to put characters in, and so on.



That's totally valid, and not story gaming, even if you're playing Dogs in the Vineyard!

See, now here you make perfect sense. It gives me hope for the future. I just hope you one day realise that one can describe how players are playing a game (what you are doing), and what a given game is originally designed for (what I am doing), and be correct both times. What you are saying (using my definitions) is that players can storygame with a roleplaying game, and with that I agree. The trouble you seem to have is that there are actually games designed specifically for the purpose of storygaming, and D&D is not one of those. Those games are story games. Lady Blackbird is one. So is Covenant. Those are both games I own, and I have tried playing Lady Blackbird with my fiancé who happens to like it much better than D&D (although I don't), but then she's an improv actress and comedienne with a degree in performing arts, so I suppose that makes sense.

Quote from: JDCorley;458557But this is not a story game. Under no circumstances must this play, in which everyone was focused on creating a story, and which indeed did produce a story satisfying to them, be labeled with the word 'story'. We must under no circumstances permit the word 'story' to be attached to this game.  In fact, the successful creation of story makes me suspect that this cannot be a 'story game'."

Actually, I see nowhere in GD's post that he says anything like what you are saying in the portion of your post I quoted above. That's more what I'm saying, but not completely. What I'm saying is that what they were using was not a story game. They were, in fact, story gaming though, because their goal, as GD stated it, was to create a story. What GD said was that story games are not very good at providing the experience they are designed to provide. That's a whole different issue altogether.

Quote from: Sigmund;458599It's relevant, but does not directly control the details of the narration of the result, so yes, being able to describe it in many ways could indeed change the impact the result has on the story one is trying to create, if one were trying to create a story.

Phew! Okay, finally.

Hit points and armor class are a great combat mechanic and combat is really important to a lot of stories. Therefore D&D's combat mechanic directly controls the narrative in that respect.

The ability to use different specific narration is no different from Primetime Adventure's "high card narrates a broad result indicated by the most successes" mechanic.  Of course you can call hits in D&D all kinds of stuff and describe it in different ways. That doesn't give it less of an impact on the story.

QuoteThing is, anything can aim at a creating a story, if you are bound and determined to use it for that. However, some games have better tools for the job than the ones D&D provides. Hence, the plethora of story games that have been written.

I name the aim of creating a story with a game "story gaming", that's all I've been saying since my first post.

QuoteI disagree. There is nothing wrong with "story oriented play". It tells you all you need to know about the overall purpose of the activity of the players. Your definition doesn't tell you how much of the hobby plays aiming at creating a story either.

Wait, what? You're the one that said my definition, which was exactly the same as "story oriented play" (UGH), was "too encompassing". I assumed you said that because you knew how much story oriented play was happening! If you don't, then you don't know my definition is too encompassing and that statement is unfounded.

An unfounded statement on the Internet?!?  You will find me on the fainting couch.  

QuoteIt pretends that everyone is, thereby dodging the entire question.

Certainly not, my definition just says that story gaming is gaming aimed at story. It assumes nothing about how prevalent it is. It was your critique that it was too "encompassing" that assumed it was extremely prevalent. Oh, and GameDaddy thinks all RPG play is story gaming under my definition, which is just not true.

QuoteOnce again, just because you wish with all your little heart that everyone were story gaming, that doesn't make it true.

Nope, as I've said numerous times in this thread, and everyone can see, you are just making this up out of thin air.

QuoteUnfortunately, I have to answer your question with a question, because I'm truly baffled. Who fucking cares what percentage of people play anything with the goal of creating a story? What does that have to do with the classification of the games themselves?

You tell me, you're the one that brought it up!

QuoteIt's a strawman you're setting up for who knows what reason. If you can show me where I've even hinted at mentioning anything about how many people play anything, I'll answer your question seriously.

I said "story gaming is gaming aimed at story" and you said "no, that's too encompassing", which means you think that there's way too much gaming aimed at story for my definition to be useful. Like, if you believed as GameDaddy believes that all gaming (or even the overwhelming majority) is ultimately about the story, then that would be a good critique of my definition.  
 I personally don't pretend to have any knowledge of the proportions involved, but really doubt that's the case. When I play at conventions, for example, with a lot of different people, the majority aren't too interested in story.  A significant percentage don't use things like dialogue or description, and don't look for means of expressing character.

Heck, I only story game about 60 percent of my gaming time. People think because I have a wise and precise definition of story gaming that I'm some kind of evangelist for it, I'm not. I have never, ever, in this entire thread, ever said once that everyone should be story gaming, or everyone is. That hasn't happened and anyone who thinks that is making it up out of their own head.

QuoteReally? I'm starting to think you don't speak English as a native language. Your definition isn't useful in talking about gaming. These definitions have nothing to do with actually playing games. They have to do with talking about games.

Again, I've said all along that this is a big mistake. Talking about products is inferior to talking about experiences and techniques.  People can use products in so many different ways, fruitfully.

 

QuoteWhen folks are playing D&D (or anything else for that matter) with the goal of creating a story, do you honestly think what you or I call the game they're using, or the activity in which they are engaging, makes any difference to them at all?

Absolutely! If they come to a board wanting help/information about D&D, their approach and goal is extremely relevant to what help or information they wll find valuable! Glad you asked!

Quote from: Sigmund;458602If by 100 percent right you mean completely wrong, you've nailed it. Narrative is the narrated portion of a story. Look it up. Apparently not so simple after all.

No, I mean, look, that's just not true at all:

Dictionary.com:

1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.
2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.
3. the art, technique, or process of narrating

Synonyms:  
chronicle, tale. Narrative, account, recital, history  are terms for a story of an event or events. Narrative  is the general term (for a story long or short; of past, present, or future; factual or imagined; told for any purpose; and with or without much detail).

Samuel Johnson defined it in 1788 as "A Relation, an Account". Noah Webster in 1831 said it was a "story, recital of particulars".  So it's not even like my use of the word is so bizarre that it's just been invented.  Pretty much the normal use of the word "narrative" is a synonym with "story" and that's how I've used it.

I mean, I'm sure literature experts have their own definition, but i'm not a literature expert, I'm just a regular dude, and as I said all along, I was just using the good old regular dude definition.

Quote from: Sigmund;458604See, now here you make perfect sense. It gives me hope for the future.

No, it only makes sense if you think story gaming is about the aim you have when you're playing a game.  Otherwise, every person who plays Dogs in the Vineyard must be story gaming because they're playing a story game.  By admitting that this is possible, you have completely embraced my definition. I told you it was good!

QuoteI just hope you one day realise that one can describe how players are playing a game (what you are doing), and what a given game is originally designed for (what I am doing), and be correct both times. What you are saying (using my definitions) is that players can storygame with a roleplaying game, and with that I agree. The trouble you seem to have is that there are actually games designed specifically for the purpose of storygaming, and D&D is not one of those.

I think certain D&D supplements definitely were, especially in the Dragonlance, Ravenloft and Al-Qadim series. But I'm no mind reader, I don't know what the designers "intended", nor is it even vaguely relevant.  What's relevant is what they wrote (so we can talk about specific aspects of written material) and the approach people take to the game (like story gaming.)

QuoteThose games are story games. Lady Blackbird is one. So is Covenant. Those are both games I own, and I have tried playing Lady Blackbird with my fiancé who happens to like it much better than D&D (although I don't), but then she's an improv actress and comedienne with a degree in performing arts, so I suppose that makes sense.

I don't agree with the definition, but that's a cool topic for another time, how backgrounds and skill sets affect how you approach or select a game.