Quote from: Sigmund;458699Honestly, I've pretty much said all I can say on this topic, my position is pretty clear I think. Geza Echs, No hard feelings brother. In all honesty, on the topic of the word "narrative", I'm more inclined to agree with you and JD that it is pretty much synonymous with the word "story". It might not have started that way, which is where I think the discrepancy arises, but I think common usage has evolved it to this point. In other things, as well, I find what you write more interesting than not, and you certainly seem smarter than I when we get right down to it. I'd definiately say more educated anyway. I look forward to your future postings.

JDCorley, thanks for an at times interesting, and always passionate discussion that we kept pretty dang civil, as these things go. Appreciate it. Keep on gaming brother, have fun

Now I gotta get back to work

Hey, no worries, and thanks for the (entirely undeserved and unwarranted) compliments. I think you've been clear overall, it's just that the topic as you've addressed it isn't of much interest to me -- I just find myself unable to care about theorizing a distinction between storygames and RPGs. That isn't to say that there's no point in theorizing a distinction, or that the distinction is meaningless; you enjoy that aspect of theory and find meaning in it where I don't, and that's cool. Sorry if I pushed your buttons -- have fun at work, and as you say, keep on gaming.

Quote from: Drohem;458669Seriously, dude, you just look like a stupid clown doing this.

By being right? Yes, it is so, truth is often pilloried.  

Or are you saying I look like a stupid clown by saying I am right? Would it make me look smarter to say I'm wrong and nothing I say is true in any way?

Let me know how I can look smart to you. Your opinion of my modest intelligence counts!

Quote from: JDCorley;458729By being right? Yes, it is so, truth is often pilloried.  

Or are you saying I look like a stupid clown by saying I am right? Would it make me look smarter to say I'm wrong and nothing I say is true in any way?

Let me know how I can look smart to you. Your opinion of my modest intelligence counts!

Well, you can start by not posting stupid shit like this.  Keep trying and don't get discouraged; it's going to take a lot of work apparently.

Quote from: Sigmund;458643Actually, it might, depending on what happens later on. A better tool for the job is MRQ2's system where types of hits and wounds are more specific.

Well, it depends on the type of combat you want to have. Mechanics are a big deal! But so long as we agree that what happens in a combat might be relevant to a story, you can see why combat rules would be of interest to a story gamer.

QuoteYour definition is indeed too encompassing. You are asserting that, because all these games CAN be used to create stories, that they are all "story games", which is not true at all.

That is not at all what I have said, I have never said this, not ever, not in this whole thread. I have only said that story games are games played aiming at story.  There are plenty of games of D&D out there that are not story games.  There are even some games of Dogs in the Vineyard that I've played that were not story games!  Story gaming occurs because the players at the table have a particular aim, not because a product does or doesn't fall into some arbitrary classification.  

QuoteThe problem is, that's not the topic of the thread. I am defining the games themselves, not the act of playing them. We are talking past each other, and have been all along.

That's not a problem, it's a solution, as I pointed out in my first post! By stopping worrying about what designers do or don't do or think or don't think, we can talk about our play and work up good ideas and suggestions for each other!

QuoteI said and say and will continue to say in the future that defining a game (not the playing of the game, the game itself) as a story game just because it can provide a story gaming experience, however imperfect or forced, is pointless.

Play is the only thing that gives any game material any point whatsoever, so nope, wrong.

QuoteThe reason games have been written to provide a more pure story gaming experience is because roleplaying games are not very well suited to the task. Otherwise why write these new types of games?

To try something new? I disagree that the story produced by what-you-wrongly-call a "story game" is somehow more pure or inherently better. It may be more to some people's tastes? But that's just a matter of taste. If the only reason to write a new game was dissatisfaction with an old game, all new games would be better than all old games, which is silly.  People try out new stuff in games all the time, that's been true since day one of the hobby.

QuoteThe mechanics they use are aimed at allowing greater control over the story creation by the players rather than just the game master.

But in regular ole normal roleplaying games the players have monstrous control over story creation by virtue of the fact that they are responsible for the words and actions of characters.  Surely you don't disagree with the fact that the words and actions of characters are normally of vital importance to a story!

Yes, there are games that move responsibilities for characters and world around among different people at the table, but that doesn't say anything about the suitability of regular ole normal GM and player roleplaying games for story! It just says people like trying things new ways and have tastes and opinions.

QuoteThey get al the players involved in creating the setting details, controlling the pacing, building the structure. A roleplaying game provides tools for none of these things to the players, because roleplaying games are not designed for this purpose.

What the fuck?! Of course it does! The players get to decide a great deal about (for example) pacing and structure in a regular roleplaying game.  "No, we're not going to chase down that opportunity, we're spending our money on ale and man-whores!"

QuoteActually, from what I've been told by other folks, peope enjoy much of what you write... except for this wonky view you have that conflates the games with the experience of playing them.

I don't conflate the two, I clearly distinguish the two, and have since the first post. In fact I reject the conflation of the two, which is what people have been yelling wildly at me about.

Quote from: Drohem;458731Well, you can start by not posting stupid shit like this.  Keep trying and don't get discouraged; it's going to take a lot of work apparently.

Okay!! Keep eeeeveryone posted on how smart you think I am, it's really important to me and I'm sure everyone else really is sitting on the edge of their seat too!

Not a story game:

Ernie the Barbarian slips into a chamber shrouded in shadows, and also in wisps silvered with moonlight. Waving a torch before him to part the webs, he makes his way toward the dim arch of a doorway in the far wall.

The Dungeon Master rolls a pair of dice, indicating that Ernie is surprised by the giant spider hanging but 10 feet above him. The spider strikes and misses, but with the advantage of surprise it gets a second chance before the man can reply. Fangs bite into the adventurer's arm. Another dice roll indicates that enough swift-acting venom has been injected to kill the prey.

Ernie the Barbarian is dead. The player played the role, made the decision to take the risks of venturing into the chamber, neglected to look up. Chance determined the consequence. The player's playing of the game is in taking measures using resources peculiar to a point of view within the depicted environment, trying to achieve a goal -- just as in operating the controls of a spaceship in a video game or sending off an aide de camp with orders for Marchand's brigade in a wargame.

In a story game, as I see it, we are concerned with determining the outcome based on whether or not it fits a story we want to tell. Instead of being satisfied with the product of mere choice and chance, we demand dramatic structure. We bring in considerations such as plot and theme, character development and moral.

We -- and here I mean very pointedly the players, as opposed to disenfranchised "players" along for the ride in a railroaded "RPG" -- are empowered to act in ways that address those concerns. We can shape the outcome on that basis, not merely by choosing actions from a character's point of view.

If I consider Ernie's demise "anticlimactic" in a story game, then not only is that reason enough to challenge it but there are rules making that challenge part of the game.

Quote from: GameDaddy;458695How can it be an RPG if the players are not creating a story?

Well, the most significant thing that I've experienced is that they are just exploring around, using their characters more or less as instruments to go through the fictional world.  The characters don't really express personalities except as means of exploring social situations.  Certainly they don't pursue their own agendas or anything.  

A lot of sandbox play can be said not to have a story aim.  You can scrupulously avoid danger, excitement, etc. in a sandbox game and still have a good time imagining yourself in this world and seeing what it's like.

There's a degree of simulation/"what if" play that I've experienced too, where we try to see what a world would be like if a particular thing (magic, superheroes, whatever) were true.

I've played in competitive RPG scenarios in which there were set goals like "kill the other dude in the arena" or "get the most treasure out of the dungeon" or "die the farthest from the door". In those scenarios there is no real expression of character, you are deploying your character as a resource.

I'm sure other people can tell you other aims they have!  This certainly isn't an exhaustive list.

Edit: Phillip described some non-story play while I was typing this.

QuoteRPGs can't exist without a story. If... there's no story, you might be playing a game yes... but it's definitely not an RPG so any story or narrative would naturally be irrelevant.

I disagree, I think many people don't play RPGs for the story, and I think the rest of this thread bears me out on this. I believe people when they say they don't play RPGs for the story, why don't you?

Quote from: Sigmund;458699I'm more inclined to agree with you and JD that it is pretty much synonymous with the word "story". It might not have started that way, which is where I think the discrepancy arises, but I think common usage has evolved it to this point. In other things, as well, I find what you write more interesting than not, and you certainly seem smarter than I when we get right down to it. I'd definiately say more educated anyway. I look forward to your future postings.

JDCorley, thanks for an at times interesting, and always passionate discussion that we kept pretty dang civil, as these things go. Appreciate it. Keep on gaming brother, have fun

Glad I can help, I live only to serve.
:cool:

Edit: Yeah, I donno about the whole "narrative" definition thing. I'm sorry I brought it up. Most of what I was talking about was just regular old story stuff.  If you went to English class in 9th grade, you have as much expertise as I do about stories.

Quote from: JDCorley;458736Okay!! Keep eeeeveryone posted on how smart you think I am, it's really important to me and I'm sure everyone else really is sitting on the edge of their seat too!

I'm sorry that your stupidity is a causing you consternation.  Now, go get your shoeshine box!

Quote from: GameDaddy;458695How can it be an RPG if the players are not creating a story?

There's a game, see? And there's more emphasis on "playing a role" than in for instance Keith Poulter's Napoleon and the Archduke Charles, see? So, people wanted some term to distinguish this game, and "role playing game" happened to be the one that came into common use, see?

QuoteOvercoming them obstacles is the challenge... the source of the conflict, the source of drama, and the foundation of the story.  

That's presupposing "the story" in the first place. There's jargon for that, but I'm not sure whether "begging the question" is precisely it.

In working at a job, "overcoming them obstacles is the challenge... the source of the conflict, the source of drama, and the foundation of the story" -- if we choose to tell a story about it. Otherwise, it's just working at a job, not story telling.

In playing a game of Chess, "overcoming them obstacles is the challenge... the source of the conflict, the source of drama, and the foundation of the story" -- if we choose to tell a story about it. Otherwise, it's just playing Chess, not story telling.

In playing a role playing game, "overcoming them obstacles is the challenge... the source of the conflict, the source of drama, and the foundation of the story" -- if we choose to tell a story about it. Otherwise, it's just playing a role playing game, not story telling.

If you seriously disagree that there is such a distinction, then you may have other problems. The immediate problem, though, is that you are treating language as a weapon to avoid communication by creating barriers of obfuscation instead of using it as a medium of conversation toward mutual understanding.

QuoteRPGs can't exist without a story. If... there's no story, you might be playing a game yes... but it's definitely not an RPG so any story or narrative would naturally be irrelevant.

Whatever you mean by "a story" here, stop pretending that we are talking about completely different things when we talk about "RPGs". I mean, if we really are, then absolutely anything you may claim is just totally irrelevant, so what's the point?

When the rest of us refer to "RPGs without a story", we mean real RPGs as they have really been played over the past 40 years. When we say that they exist without a story, you need to accept that as established and make sure that any definition of "a story" is not denying that existence.

Otherwise, you have just gone down the rabbit hole right out of the conversation.

Quote from: JDCorleyStory gaming occurs because the players at the table have a particular aim, not because a product does or doesn't fall into some arbitrary classification.

Ditto card gaming, and collectible card gaming, and dice gaming, and board gaming, and miniature war gaming, and role play gaming, and live action role play gaming, and Japanese computer RPG gaming, and Rotisserie football gaming, and college football betting gaming, and text adventure gaming, and point and click adventure gaming, and lawn gaming, and massively multiplayer online first person shooter gaming, and massively multiplayer online farm simulation gaming, and....

Who besides JDCorley expects everyone in the world suddenly to give up as useless the very foundation of language?

I don't get what you're saying?  Those other things have different definitions? So...yes, they do?

I mean, we say "competitive game" and we're talking about how the gaming is carried out and for what purpose, right?  I say "story game" is more like "competitive game" than it is like "board game".

What I like about Jason's position is that it advocates people to check games even if they're not expected to promote their favorite game style. DitV is supposed to promote story gaming? Sure, why not, but that doesn't mean one can't steal mechanics and ideas from it. The poker/dice hybrid used during conflict resolution is neat, it could probably be re-used in other context, without story-gaming in mind. I think "say yes or roll the dice" can be reshaped and reused outside of story gaming too (as in "your character knows Latin with a 90% score? Of course he understands this quote, don't bother rolling the dice" or "why endure the whiff factor when there's no need to?").

Not buying story-games because you don't like story gaming is legitimate, of course. But being curious and peeping at others ideas is a sign of a healthy mind IMHO.

Quote from: boulet;458767I think "say yes or roll the dice" can be reshaped and reused outside of story gaming too (as in "your character knows Latin with a 90% score? Of course he understands this quote, don't bother rolling the dice" or "why endure the whiff factor when there's no need to?").

You are confused. That's "Say yes AND DON'T roll dice", and it's familiar not only from RuneQuest (1978), etc., but going right back to Dungeons & Dragons (1974) -- in which we didn't even have ratings for everything from basket weaving to tying knots.

In particular, there was no "90% score" for Latin in D&D! By the book, one either knew a language or did not. Concern with partial knowledge would be a "house rules" elaboration.

"Or roll the dice" eliminates saying "no". That is something else altogether, something that eliminates all common sense and consistency.

I think that's why he used the word "reshaped"?

Dogs in the Vineyard definitely contains a "say no" option, by the by.