Quote from: JDCorley;459121So the only way I can say it's different is that in one situation the player wants character advancement because they think it will make for a good story, and in the other, they don't.

I understand where you are coming from and your points about player motivations. And yes I have refereed players who think of their character story as part of how they decide to do things in the game.

However you have to understand to a referee it is a meaningless distinction. Players come up all kinds of reasons for acting the way they do in the game. Ranging from deep immersion, pursuing an interesting situation, developing an interesting story, or just doing little better than roleplaying a version of themselves in the setting.

I will explain further.

Quote from: JDCorley;459121...
But let's say the player really wanted there to be a prince to marry and the GM said "nope there isn't".  Are you asking if they might be dissatisfied with this situation? Yes, absolutely!  GMs are very important to games like that.  They have a big input into everyone's happiness, no matter what the goals of the players are.
.....
But let's say the player really wanted to explore the situation of being married to a prince, and the GM said "nope, there isn't one."  They might very well be dissatisfied with the answer too.  "Dammit, there should be one!"

The examples you give happen, back 30 years ago I even told a player that myself a few time and left them dissatisfied. A good referee learns to talk with his players before the campaign and learn what they are interested in. What their goals are for their character(s). If the setting plausibly doesn't have a Prince, there is likely an equivalent. A Duke, or a the son of a great Merchant Captain, or even the son of the tribal chief if it is that kind of setting.

Regardless of the details, what important is that the referee works with the player and together find a starting point for what the player wants to do with her character.

The reason distinctions you make are of no practical use is because a good referee does the above regardless of what motivates the players. What changes are the details of the result. A talk with a players interested in combat is going to result in the referee incorporating certain details while the talk with the player that is, as you call it, a story gamer is going to result in a different set of details.

Gamers are diverse in their interests as individuals. So diverse you just can't make quick assumption and expect them to work for that player. Nothing substitute for specific knowledge about what the player interested in.

The category of story-gamer is just as useless as the category of gun-bunny, power gamer, munchkin, narrativist,and the dozens of other little labels we came up with over the years. Nothing substitute for getting to know your player and what they are interested in.

Furthermore, it is off point for this thread which Benoist is been trying to explain to you. The OP is about what the line between Story GAMES and Role-playing GAMES. Not about the players but about the game. What makes a game design turn from being about players roleplaying a character first to one that about creating a story first.

Quote from: JDCorley;459121Those games you list are really flexible, they can accommodate story approaches as well as many others.

With the above and this

Quote from: JDCorley;458937I don't give a damn what a designer thinks, fuck the designer.  I don't care what they designed their game "for", I care what they actually wrote.

It seem what you are saying that a game is a story game if players playing it are story gamers and treat it as a story game.

Which is silly as claiming Monopoloy is about roleplaying  being a real-estate agent or playing Third Reich is about roleplaying being Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, or Roosevelt. You could try it with those games

Quote from: JDCorley;459121True!  Universalis has a more collaborative aspect to it.  It gives up the singular vision/responsibility of a GM and makes the game world community property.  But in Universalis, if I have enough tokens, I can absolutely block you from creating a marriageable prince, or marrying them.  And if that's what you want, you can be stymied in the same way as the player in the other games. Or if you have enough tokens, you can force a prince into the setting to marry and I might be dissatisfied as my goal (whatever it is) is stymied.

It is the player blocking the lady's goal of marrying the prince, not his character Sir Roundalot. And that the distinction between a game focused on story as opposed to roleplaying a character. That there meta-mechanics designed to allow the group to resolve conflicting views about the story. Or even make a competitive game out of it like "Once a Upon Time". These meta-mechanics are used by the PLAYERS not their CHARACTERS.

There is no meta-mechanic in GURPS that allow you as a player to block another player's goal of marrying the prince. The only method have is to have your character do something that results in the marriage not taking place.

Where it gets gray is that you can add meta-mechanics to a roleplaying game, and you can had character specific mechanics to a game focused on collaboratively creating a story. And so we have debates on which games fall on what side of the line.

My opinion is that meta-mechanics are a poor fit for roleplaying games. Things like Pendragon's virtues, Fate aspects, largely distract from roleplaying a character. That the way to promote better roleplaying is not through mechanics but good advice that present well-written techniques. That due to the diversity of interests among players and referee that there is never going to be a "best" way only various methods that work for various situations and goals.

Quote from: JDCorley;459121It's different insofar as their purpose is different and they might do different things about it, and satisfying one might be different from satisfying another?

As I said above, the details of what you, as a referee, will incorporate into the campaign will differ, but the method of getting those details are the same regardless what the players is interested in.

And what not been said is even after the referee for a roleplaying game done this, the story gamer, as you defined, would be limited to what their characters can do. And this is the mechanic of RPGs that drive some gamers to play and develop story games.

.

Quote from: JDCorley;459121They will spend a lot of time talking or thinking about their characters' motivations to do what they're doing.  They will spend a lot of time trying to fit the events of a campaign together into a narrative (this can be hard if random shit comes in or if they don't yet understand everything that's happened).  They will dig around a lot looking for reasons why things are the way they are and why characters are doing the things they're doing. They will look for ways to express traits (not just capabilities) of their characters.  They will particularly gravitate towards challenges that aim directly at those traits.  When you ask them "why do you like roleplaying games", they will say "for the great story!" and smile.

Everything you describe is what a die-hard roleplayer does and what I do as a player. In tabletop and LARPs I am noted for immersing myself into my characters. And I do the funny voices to boot.

In addition I had players like this in my Majestic Wilderlands campaigns and they were very happy with the game I ran. The reason is that I worked them to incorporate what they are interested into the campaign.

The thing that I have to drive home to players that immerse themselves into their characters is that they will have to live with the consequences of the decisions they make as their characters both good and bad. That while I will work with them to fill in gaps as they come up, they can't use this to pull a rabbit out of the hat and save the day. It works because I make sure the good consequences happens while some referee only seem to focus on making the bad consequences happen.

Quote from: Benoist;459163No, I did not have these sorts of things in mind, though it seems obvious to me that the medium of video games lends itself better to the enjoyment of 'story' and 'narrative' than traditional role playing games.

That's interesting. Of course, as videogames researcher Gonzalo Frasca observes, the degree to which video games can be understood as "story" versus "game" is a question that has given rise to some probably unnecessary contentiousness as well. Frasca wants to suggest that, at least in the academic study of videogames and videogame design, there are no real "radical ludologists"--that is, people who believe that videogames are best understood as pure game without any legitimate narrative elements. Frasca has probably never been here, though.

The connection between videogames of a certain kind and tabletop RPGs may be best understood as genealogical, but a connection does exist: both are regarded as "immersive" media of play. That brings to mind Salen and Zimmerman's book on game design Rules of Play, where they talk about "the immersive fallacy," which is the idea that the goal of a given expressive practice must be the increasingly faithful representation of the aesthetic object. In no other aesthetic endeavor is this considered to be the case: trompe l'oeil is a stylistic curiosity, not a culmination, and painting has gone in a different direction since then. I find that the "world-in-motion" design rhetoric that circulates here smacks of the immersive fallacy, since very few people frame their sandbox-play orientation as an "artistic" or stylistic choice instead of a commitment to absolute mimesis. Of course, the real radical immersionists are the dogmatists of the Turku style, but they were half-kidding.

QuoteA game which would involve action points or hero points for instance, such as RuneQuest or Arcana Evolved, doesn't instantly become a 'story game' in my mind, for instance. It's a matter of degrees, not either/or, with some extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

That much seems clear.

Quote from: Benoist;459163A game which would involve action points or hero points (such as RuneQuest or Arcana Evolved)...

RuneQuest??

Must be a Mongoose thing.

Quote from: Bill White;459171That's interesting. Of course, as videogames researcher Gonzalo Frasca observes, the degree to which video games can be understood as "story" versus "game" is a question that has given rise to some probably unnecessary contentiousness as well. Frasca wants to suggest that, at least in the academic study of videogames and videogame design, there are no real "radical ludologists"--that is, people who believe that videogames are best understood as pure game without any legitimate narrative elements. Frasca has probably never been here, though.

The connection between videogames of a certain kind and tabletop RPGs may be best understood as genealogical, but a connection does exist: both are regarded as "immersive" media of play. That brings to mind Salen and Zimmerman's book on game design Rules of Play, where they talk about "the immersive fallacy," which is the idea that the goal of a given expressive practice must be the increasingly faithful representation of the aesthetic object. In no other aesthetic endeavor is this considered to be the case: trompe l'oeil is a stylistic curiosity, not a culmination, and painting has gone in a different direction since then. I find that the "world-in-motion" design rhetoric that circulates here smacks of the immersive fallacy, since very few people frame their sandbox-play orientation as an "artistic" or stylistic choice instead of a commitment to absolute mimesis. Of course, the real radical immersionists are the dogmatists of the Turku style, but they were half-kidding.

Thank you for bringing up those points, and the references too. The Rules of Play seems interesting. Seems to be worth a read on my part.

Now, RE: world in motion, it's interesting you should mention that, because I would call the notion of creating the illusion of a world-in-motion that exists beyond the boundaries of the make-believe just that: a trompe l'oeil (nevermind the notion that the world could actually exist by virtue of being real in your imagination and being shared with the other participants'). It's a form of illusionism, which involves not the actual creation of the world in every single detail (to me at least: I know there are those who would disagree with this), but the mise en oeuvre of specific techniques and the use of specific tools to in effect role play the environment as a game master, as if it were a real place in your mind's eye. Just like you'd have a series of broad spots on the painting of some impressionist giving you the impression there is a flower there to be seen, and sometimes an impression that speaks to you and your feelings more in terms of reality than an actual digital picture of the flower would, you can with specific touches in terms of say, hand outs, or NPCs, or news the PCs hear from town criers, create the illusion of a 'real' world-in-motion 'out there'.

Quote from: Phillip;459174RuneQuest??

Must be a Mongoose thing.

It is. Mongoose RuneQuest II has hero points.

Quote from: estarThings like Pendragon's virtues... largely distract from roleplaying a character.

Alignments in D&D, C&S, etc., would be among those -- but I have not found them, or KAP's religious virtues, to "distract from" role playing a character. In fact, I find the KAP traits and passions a key part of that game. I also like the sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu.

So, this is one of those things that varies from person to person.

It does not have anything particularly to do with "story games", either!

Sandbox? Artistic or stylistic?

Dunno, man. It's "just D&D" to me, like (I think) it's "just WoW" to other and mainly younger people. That's the game, no big philosophical whoop about it. I don't worry about some deep "artistic style choice" behind Chess for 2 players, so why worry about such a thing when it comes to Diplomacy or D&D?

Quote from: Bill White;459171The connection between videogames of a certain kind and tabletop RPGs may be best understood as genealogical, but a connection does exist: both are regarded as "immersive" media of play. That brings to mind Salen and Zimmerman's book on game design Rules of Play, where they talk about "the immersive fallacy," which is the idea that the goal of a given expressive practice must be the increasingly faithful representation of the aesthetic object.

Bill,

How do Salen and Zimmerman define "immersion" in Rules of Play?

Quote from: Bill White;459171"the immersive fallacy,"

The immersive fallacy as applied to Game Theory really doesn't apply as much to a traditional RPG.  The fallacy basically concerns itself with immersion being the most important design goal, when in a "game", the goals themselves should be the design goal.

There is the actual thing being simulated, and then there is the game.  Game design should concern itself with "the gap", what lies between the perfect object and the simulation.

Look at Grand Theft Auto, a classic example often used to explain this theory.  When you play GTA, it feels open and unconfining, but it's not.  There are a thousand buildings in the city, 5 of which I can enter.  I can kick the whore out my car without paying her, but I can't set her up in her own apartment or kill her and dump her body in the sewer.  The "game" in GTA lies not in the freedom, but in the restraints, the focus, the goals of the game.

This "immersive fallacy" idea best applies to computer games, in which there is a definite movement towards more "immersive experiences" without necessarily good, focused game design.

Such an idea as applied to RPGs usually is referring to the level of detail in the rules.  "The gap" in an RPG is the game engine, what level of abstraction is desired.  The answer of course is, it varies.  Some people prefer playing Barbarians of Lemuria, others prefer playing Harnmaster.  Each has a different way of representing "the gap", there is no right answer, and what works for one, sinks another.

Which, getting back to the topic, is similar to RPGs and Storygames.  Add narrative-driven mechanics to RPGs, and at some point, it will feel like a different type of game altogether, you can say the same thing about adding character-driven mechanics to Storygames.  The actual dividing line itself is personal, however, the mechanics themselves which make up a game are easily defined.

In Fate, Aspects are a narrative mechanic.  You can use them in a way that's not so Storygamey, or you can use them in a way that's very Storygamey.  Aspects, however, are a narrative metagame mechanic, you can't use them in a way that is 100% character-driven, no matter what you do.

So if someone asks me what kind of game is Fate, I'm going to respond "a Narrative RPG".  It's basically an RPG, with some key narrative mechanics.  Ditto Burning Wheel, Ditto SIFRP, Ditto Riddle of Steel.  I'm not branding them as such to denigrate them, I'm defining design elements to clarify and refine discussion about them.

BTW Bill, who the heck ever claimed their sandbox campaigns were absolute mimesis.  The whole point of World-in-Motion is that it is an artistic style of GMing to begin with.  As Ben said, it's akin to illusionism and surrealism.  In fact, most sandbox GM's most definitely are NOT suffering from the "immersive fallacy" because they know exactly what the "setting gap" is between the "reality" of the world, and the game, and how much work they need to do to pull off that illusion.  A good sandbox campaign is just like GTA, you think you can do anything and have ultimate freedom, because the GM is so good at giving you just enough detail to make the world come alive.  Yes, you have a sandbox to explore, but there is a sandbox.

Quote from: CRKrueger;459205This "immersive fallacy" idea best applies to computer games, in which there is a definite movement towards more "immersive experiences" without necessarily good, focused game design.

Agreed. One significant advantage that RPG's manage to hold over CRPG's and MMO's is the GM, who can add to the immersion (also new conflicts and drama) by providing additional details and choices that are not present in a pre-scripted game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;459205BTW Bill, who the heck ever claimed their sandbox campaigns were absolute mimesis.  The whole point of World-in-Motion is that it is an artistic style of GMing to begin with.  As Ben said, it's akin to illusionism and surrealism.  In fact, most sandbox GM's most definitely are NOT suffering from the "immersive fallacy" because they know exactly what the "setting gap" is between the "reality" of the world, and the game, and how much work they need to do to pull off that illusion.  A good sandbox campaign is just like GTA, you think you can do anything and have ultimate freedom, because the GM is so good at giving you just enough detail to make the world come alive.  Yes, you have a sandbox to explore, but there is a sandbox.

Never been able to get absolute mimesis in any of my games. Building large game worlds (sandboxes) however has provided more opportunities to engage the players. Not on account of my preferences, on account of theirs, as they'll adopt goals and motivations that suit them depending on the style of the NPCs or the environment the players find themselves in.

Quote from: CRKruegerThe whole point of World-in-Motion is that it is an artistic style of GMing to begin with. As Ben said, it's akin to illusionism and surrealism.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you fellows are talking about with 'mimesis' and whatnot.

The game should be in a heap of motion if you've got 20+ players, as recommended in the D&D handbook. If you don't have them, and you want a similar kind of game, then you more or less have to simulate them.

The latter course is more work on the DM's shoulders, but this is not a problem peculiar to RPGs. Any multi-player/team game naturally tends to create a more dynamic environment than one with fewer players/teams. Reducing it effectively to just one team of a few players with one character each (as a lot of DMs do) changes the game pretty significantly.

So, "artistic style"? Maybe, if you insist on thinking of it that way. More practically, when we get right down actually to playing, it's like one-on-one Football -- not quite the same game!

Quote from: Benoist;459176Now, RE: world in motion, it's interesting you should mention that, because I would call the notion of creating the illusion of a world-in-motion that exists beyond the boundaries of the make-believe just that: a trompe l'oeil . . . a form of illusionism, which involves not the actual creation of the world in every single detail . . . but the mise en oeuvre of specific techniques and the use of specific tools to in effect role play the environment as a game master, as if it were a real place in your mind's eye.

Exactly so. It is an important insight to recognize that playing an RPG requires the application of some set of representational practices and techniques. I wouldn't limit that to just the GM, either; the players do representational work as well. I have a friend who has written about the way that players seek out certain kinds of information, avoid other kinds, and ignore still others (Harviainen, 2006).

Quote from: Lorrraine;459200Bill,

How do Salen and Zimmerman define "immersion" in Rules of Play?

The closest they come to taking a positive position on immersion is to incorporate Huizinga's notion of "the magic circle" into their understanding of how games work. The "magic circle" is the social space within which play occurs, bounded off temporally and spatially from "normal life" so that the concerns and considerations of the real world are temporarily bracketed off. They adopt the Goffmanesque notion of the "play frame" (looking at or orienting oneself toward a situation as game-like or playful) and mention Bernard Suits' concept of the "lusory attitude" (i.e., a willingness to be bound by the rules of a game in achieving one's goals).

Ultimately, their conception of "immersion" in a game seems to be along the lines of deep engagement: "Players of Tetris do not 'casually interact' with it [the way they would a screensaver program, say]; rather, they are playing a game." Pausing a game is tantamount to stepping out of the play frame, crossing back over the boundary of the magic circle.

They define the immersive fallacy as "the idea that the pleasure of a media experience lies in its ability to transport the participant into an illusory, simulated reality" (p. 450). The immersive fallacy suggests that "this reality is so complete that ideally the frame falls away so that the player truly believes that he or she is part of an imaginary world."

Quote from: CRKrueger;459205The immersive fallacy as applied to Game Theory really doesn't apply as much to a traditional RPG. . . . This "immersive fallacy" idea best applies to computer games, in which there is a definite movement towards more "immersive experiences" without necessarily good, focused game design.

Sure, they're talking about it in the context of videogame design, but it seems to me that the general principle applies: once you stop being aware of what they call the "play frame" or "magic circle" as a designer, you run the risk of fundamentally misunderstanding what you're about.

QuoteSuch an idea as applied to RPGs usually is referring to the level of detail in the rules.  "The gap" in an RPG is the game engine, what level of abstraction is desired.  The answer of course is, it varies.  Some people prefer playing Barbarians of Lemuria, others prefer playing Harnmaster.  Each has a different way of representing "the gap", there is no right answer, and what works for one, sinks another.

I don't think this actually refutes the possibility of an RPG participant falling prey to the immersive fallacy. When people use language like, "The rules are the physics of the game-world," they skirt perilously close to falling in to the gap of which you speak.

QuoteWhich, getting back to the topic, is similar to RPGs and Storygames.  Add narrative-driven mechanics to RPGs, and at some point, it will feel like a different type of game altogether, you can say the same thing about adding character-driven mechanics to Storygames.  The actual dividing line itself is personal, however, the mechanics themselves which make up a game are easily defined.

In Fate, Aspects are a narrative mechanic.  You can use them in a way that's not so Storygamey, or you can use them in a way that's very Storygamey.  Aspects, however, are a narrative metagame mechanic, you can't use them in a way that is 100% character-driven, no matter what you do.

I don't think that this is true, but that's probably because I think "100% character-driven" is a phantom of the immersive fallacy. In any case, it is certainly possible for players to use Aspects as a guide for "what my guy what do" rather than "what advantages me game mechanically." I once ran a game of Spirit of the Century where the player had the Aspect, "That's a risk I'm willing to take," and I presented him with a risky business proposition as a compel (i.e., as a situation requiring both an in-game action and an exchange of game-mechanical currency)--but framed in a really funky, meta-gamey kind of way. Interestingly, the player (unfamiliar with SOTC rules) made me back up and explain what was going on, and even though I had to resort to rules explanations to make it clear, his uptake of the compel and his reaction to it were framed solely in character terms: "I can't make a claim like that [i.e., being willing to take risks] without backing it up, so I'll take [the compel]." You can read a fuller account here.

QuoteSo if someone asks me what kind of game is Fate, I'm going to respond "a Narrative RPG".  It's basically an RPG, with some key narrative mechanics.  Ditto Burning Wheel, Ditto SIFRP, Ditto Riddle of Steel.  I'm not branding them as such to denigrate them, I'm defining design elements to clarify and refine discussion about them.

On the other hand, I think that's a fair characterization.

QuoteBTW Bill, who the heck ever claimed their sandbox campaigns were absolute mimesis.  The whole point of World-in-Motion is that it is an artistic style of GMing to begin with.  As Ben said, it's akin to illusionism and surrealism.  In fact, most sandbox GM's most definitely are NOT suffering from the "immersive fallacy" because they know exactly what the "setting gap" is between the "reality" of the world, and the game, and how much work they need to do to pull off that illusion.  A good sandbox campaign is just like GTA, you think you can do anything and have ultimate freedom, because the GM is so good at giving you just enough detail to make the world come alive.  Yes, you have a sandbox to explore, but there is a sandbox.

I agree with you, but I've definitely seen language here and elsewhere that suggests that the goal of RPGing must always be a kind of high-level immersion in which any intrusion of the game-frame or reality-frame is not just unwelcome, but breaks the experience entirely. Your description of a good sandbox campaign matches mine, but I've read stuff here (I would point to it if I could) imply that it is illegitimate for the GM to just improvise, create things on the fly, or incorporate player suggestions and suppositions in the course of play, for fear of making the world less "real." But if you say that this is a straw man, I will be forced to stand corrected.

Bah.  I need to actually break out my copy of RoP and read it now.  Dammit, Bill.

*edit*

Bill, do you think that "physics as reality" play could attract a certain type of person, say, someone who leans towards being an autotelic?  That because they reach flow-state much more easily than other people (or are constantly in it), that they don't need any sort of social frame for play, but instead just do?

Quote from: Bill WhiteThey define the immersive fallacy as "the idea that the pleasure of a media experience lies in its ability to transport the participant into an illusory, simulated reality"

Based on what evidence is it false?

"I really enjoy this illusion, because..."
"No, you don't! It's just an illusion that you enjoy the illusion!"

Quote from: Phillip;459234"Immersive fallacy"? Based on what evidence is it false?

Maybe it's the morphine drip, but this is just fucking hilarious.