Quote from: Phillip;459005Well, you had better start at least trying to understand if you want to contribute something to the conversation.

Especially since, you know... that's the whole point of the conversation in the first place.

Quote from: JDCorleyAs I pointed out, plenty of people enjoy a story approach while still preferring mechanics that put them in their character's skin.

I ask again, what do you mean by "a story approach"?

Stop playing the Joe McCarthy "I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people" routine.

Quote from: Phillip;459011I ask again, what do you mean by "a story approach"?

It's not rocket science, it's just people who like aiming at a story while playing RPGs.  They enjoy RPG play most when it's most like a story. They like using game mechanics to help them build a story, like characters making decisions or organizing campaigns by theme.  I don't know why this seems so weird, especially since you clearly have read Prince Valiant and know that story approaches are very common in RPGs!

QuoteStop playing the Joe McCarthy "I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people" routine.

Huh? Oh, I have no idea how many there are. I just know they exist and therefore my classification is valid.

Quote from: Phillip;459005Well, you had better start at least trying to understand if you want to contribute something to the conversation. Otherwise, you are just as irrelevant as the fellow who hopes to contribute to a discussion of zoology without understanding or wanting to understand the distinction between a reptile and a bird.

I don't agree, this isn't a conversation about the classification of mechanics, but instead, as I've said all along, about the classification of play.

Quote from: estar;458877The closest thing is improvised Theater where the actors are riffing of each other to create entertainment for themselves or an audience. There are rules that the actors may follow to allow some level of coordination, but the absence of the sport and independent players make improve theater its own thing.  A good improv group would have to make many changes to run a live-action event and vice-versa.

Although notably, once rules are instituted, these are referred to as "improv games".

Quote from: JDCorley;458937

QuoteSo it clear, I feel the use of meta-game mechanics in a tabletop RPG is a bad design decision.

I've never understood this distinction, and I don't think it's really borne out.  All mechanics are abstracted to some degree, that's why they're mechanics.

Are you even aware that you completely ignored what he wrote and instead started talking about something else entirely?

Basically, are you a troll or an idiot? You've exhausted all other possibilities.

Quote from: Phillip;458996Yes, it does.

So far as I can see, you are the only one doing so.

Um...then I didn't get your post at all.

Your post seems to be saying "RPGs do not, must not ever be said to produce story except after the fact! As proof of this, here is an RPG that talks about producing story through play and in which you are encouraged to enjoy the story while you're playing it, and manipulate it with various mechanics and character decisions."

Like...Prince Valiant is an example that supports my position that story gaming is a valid approach to RPGs, and many RPGs have supported the story gaming approach over the many years of the hobby.

Or are you saying that Prince Valiant is not a RPG?

Quote from: JDCorley;459021I don't agree, this isn't a conversation about the classification of mechanics, but instead, as I've said all along, about the classification of play.

You keep insisting that this is true. And yet the common usage of these terms are applied to the games themselves and not varied by the sessions of play.

So, basically, your entire premise is wrong. And anyone with even a casual familiarity with RPGs and story games would know this to be true.

QuoteAre you even aware that you completely ignored what he wrote and instead started talking about something else entirely?

Basically, are you a troll or an idiot? You've exhausted all other possibilities.

Awesome!! I'll be an idiot then, thanks.

The answer to your question is, no, I did not ignore what he wrote and no, I did not start talking about something else entirely.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;459026You keep insisting that this is true. And yet the common usage of these terms are applied to the games themselves and not varied by the sessions of play.

As I said in my first post in the thread, and thoroughly proved, the common usage is wrong and should be discarded.

Quote from: JDCorley;459021I don't agree, this isn't a conversation about the classification of mechanics, but instead, as I've said all along, about the classification of play.

No. You did not start this conversation. Others did, and that's not what they were talking about. Stop trying to change the subject. Everybody here agrees with you that there are people who engage in play wanting to create a story, while others do not.

The point is that some games address these play styles explicitly or implicitly with game mechanics that are created with the specific aim of enabling story-telling, emphasizing the player as coauthor of the story, while other games will emphasize the player as the character experiencing the game world in first-person as a real, if fictional, place. The former is what I call a 'story game', and the latter is a 'role playing game'.

Now, in practice, some games will very obviously favor one approach over the other, while others still will be anywhere between these two extremes. It's not a question of clear either/or choices, but rather a matter of zones or shades of grey in between.

Now stop shifting the goal posts. Answer this.

Quote from: Benoist;459029No. You did not start this conversation. Others did, and that's not what they were talking about. Stop trying to change the subject. Everybody here agrees with you that there are people who engage in play wanting to create a story, while others do not.

Great!

QuoteThe point is that some games address these play styles explicitly or implicitly with game mechanics that are created with the specific aim of enabling story-telling, emphasizing the player as coauthor of the story, while other games will emphasize the player as the character experiencing the game world in first-person as a real, if fictional, place. The former is what I call a 'story game', and the latter is a 'role playing game'.

Now, in practice, some games will very obviously favor one approach over the other, while others still will be anywhere between these two extremes. It's not a question of clear either/or choices, but rather a matter of zones or shades of grey in between.

This is why calling "story gaming" an approach rather than a label on a product is much more valuable. For example, the "players say what a single character says and does" rule can be used to great effect to produce a story, if that's what you want, but it can also be used for other reasons.  So trying to put a game that contains that rule into one category or another based on the presence or absence of that rule is fruitless.  BUT if we talk about play, how that rule is used, what we want to do with that rule, we easily and precisely make distinctions that make sense.

QuoteNow stop shifting the goal posts. Answer this.

I already did? This has always been my point?

Quote from: JDCorley;459021I don't agree, this isn't a conversation about the classification of mechanics, but instead, as I've said all along, about the classification of play.

You are plainly wrong. Your "classification of play" is not only irrelevant to the subject at hand, but (by coincidence) is also utterly useless when you put it as:

Quote from: JDCorleyShe likes having a character who makes dramatically interesting decisions in a pressing situation. You know, normal story stuff. Dialogue, action, motivations, conflicts.

Really! So, the rest of us do not like that stuff in our RPGs, eh?

You essentially call us liars when we say that what we distinguish is what estar called "meta-game mechanics". You insist that what we really want to isolate from "traditional RPGs" are
-- dramatically interesting decisions
-- dialogue
-- action
-- motivations
-- conflicts.

Do you really not get how asinine that is?

RPG: Life-Experience Medium. Always in First-Person model.  Immersion required to do anything or achieve anything due to requires association of play with the milieu via rules and rulings.  Very much "You Are There!" and treated like living through history as it happens.

Story Game: Story-Telling Medium.  Often Third-Person; First-Person optional.  Immersion discouraged.  Association optional, and sometimes discouraged, due to lack of requirement to get anything done.  More like collaborative writing.

Quote from: JDCorley;459025Or are you saying that Prince Valiant is not a RPG?

I don't think it suddenly necessary to bill it as "NOT an RPG" any more than it is suddenly necessary to bill Dungeons & Dragons as "NOT Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames".

Later D&D sets' covers indicated "The Original Fantasy Role Playing Game". The cover of PV (indeed the actual full title) indicates "The Storytelling Game".

However, here is what author Greg Stafford wrote:
'Prince Valiant is most like a "roleplaying" game, such as RuneQuest, King Arthur Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu and Dungeons and Dragons, but is even different from them. Prince Valiant is a storytelling game.'

Screw role-playing.  I'll stick to GMing.  Since you can't do both at the same time.