"Storygames" are roughly to "role-playing games" as "eurogames" are to "ameritrash games" in board games.

The roughness of the comparison comes in when we notice that storygames are not ultimately focused on the pure game abstraction. D&D 4e may be the real eurogame equivalent here.

The ultimate focus rather is on the story a player wants to tell. The abstraction turns trying to tell one's preferred story into a game, rather than modeling characters' interactions with their world.

Metaphorically, we can apply "trying to tell a story" to any undertaking. It can be unhelpful, though. "I'm trying to tell a story in which I get across town in time to make my appointment" is certainly not helpful in the real world if it means ignoring the difference between real life and fiction.

A "story game" recognizes the difference between "trying to solve a puzzle" and "trying to tell a story in which I solve the puzzle". One way or another, it shifts the player's attention from one to the other.

I started thinking about this back in the early 1980s.

I considered, for instance, the question of why Monster X happens to appear. In a story game, I reasoned, the answer would be the same sort that one would give from a literary-dramatic perspective. It is to achieve some effect, elicit some response.

In a game, that does not necessarily mean a 'railroad' to a certain outcome. However, it does tend to constrain acceptable outcomes.

The purpose of the Dark Riders is specifically to 'menace' our heroes and add atmosphere as they venture forth from Happy Hamlet. If they are in the event so effective as to prevent the heroes from departing, thereby securing the Dark Lord's victory in this early chapter, then that is probably against the story the GM is trying to tell.

It is probably against the stories the players are trying to tell, as well. In other cases, however, people may be trying to tell different stories.

In an RPG, the purpose of the Dark Riders is in fact to try to prevent the heroes from accomplishing their quest. The Riders are probably written up to make this an interesting challenge for the players, a good game in its own right, especially if the context is as narrowly focused on one adventure as is typical today.

(In a full old-style campaign, the heroes might not stand a chance because this particular circumstance is not the starting condition of the game but just one thing that has emerged from many moves.)

In an RPG, the Dark Riders act as agents of their Dark Lord, not of an Author with a Story. The hero players play the roles of their characters, not the roles of Directors rearranging stage sets and props and blocking out the moves or writing the lines of other characters.

In a story game, what keeps it an actual game (as opposed to a 'railroad') is some mechanism confounding an Author's or Director's intent. Early on, I tried doing this by weighing "game stats" and outcomes on literary-dramatic rather than simulation principles.

What I mean by this is the sort of weirdness -- now very familiar -- in which "never loses his bowler hat" beats "defenestrates foes" in a roll-off.

I thought it would be even better to have factors such as "guilt over Uncle Ben's death", interacting with the likes of "Learns Better and humiliates, or witnesses the humiliation of, someone holding the now deprecated view".

In other words, rules of foreshadowing and poetic justice and the like -- the sort of stuff one finds at "TV Tropes" -- would take the place of more naturalistic rules.

At any rate, we are dealing here with points of view quite removed from what is likely to go through the head of a real person interacting with a real world. We are no longer playing such a role, but have stepped outside it.

There is more I would say, but this post is already long and perhaps too convoluted for all the points already made to be clear.

Quote from: two_fishes;456781Dogs in the Vinyard can be played without leaving an IC-POV--stakes setting can be set entirely from an IC-POV, amounting to the GM asking the player, "What do you (the character) want to get out of this?" Dread is played from an IC-POV--the resolution mechanic is disassociated, but the player never has to leave the IC-POV to play. I'd have to double-check, but I don't think that uber-storygame, My Life With Master ever demands that the player leave an IC-POV if they don't wish to.

Stakes setting can be made from an IC-POV, at least when a player expresses what his/her character would like to get out of the conflict. But there's the other side of the coin: the question of what happens if the PC fails. Players (GM included) are supposed to get to an agreement here, even take advice from players not directly involved in the conflict. It makes the table think about two possible branches for the story. The advice here is usually "find interesting stakes" i.e. stakes that will lead to a good story. People might try to stick to IC-POV but this procedure is a bit alien for gamers who don't want to deal with narrative thinking. It's already getting them out of the desired mindset, just like others get bugged by minis and tactical mechanics.

Quote from: boulet;456869Stakes setting can be made from an IC-POV, at least when a player expresses what his/her character would like to get out of the conflict.

Yeah, kind of like you can use a trad RPG to play a storytelling/narrative game, which is to say, yes, you can, in theory, if you can swallow that as a player, but that's not really what stakes rules were made for in the first place.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456655It's not invisible at the table, it can be invisible at the table.  In other words, I can be playing a traditional rpg with not a narrative element in sight, and not really care one bit about my character's POV.

The interesting thing about associated mechanics, however, is that they basically "force" you to roleplay. They can't make you do a good job of it or play a consistent character or immerse yourself in the role, but when you make a choice regarding an associated mechanic you are making a choice as your character. You are playing the role.

Quote from: two_fishes;456781Here's where I want to get into specifics and ask which games do this. Because the great majority of games lumped into the Storygames category don't. Dread is played from an IC-POV--the resolution mechanic is disassociated, but the player never has to leave the IC-POV to play.

I'd argue that Dread's dissociated resolution mechanic does require the players to leave the IC-POV: The decision of whether or not to pull a block is based on the current state of the tower (this is fairly obvious in actual play and is also explicitly talked about in the rulebook IIRC), and that decision-making process has no association to the character's decision-making process.

The decision of which block to pull is also arguably a decision-making process dissociated from the character. And while the decision to sacrifice yourself can frequently map to a similar decision by the character, its usually being based on information that has no association to the character (the current state of the tower).

(Unfortunately my copy of Dogs in the Vineyard has disappeared on me here and I don't own the other games, so I can't comment on those.)

Discussion of "Storytelling" vs actual Games always makes me think of one of my favorite Dave Kenzer quotes.

QuoteDarwinism, fight-for-all-you're-worth, ass-kicking competition that challenges players to the limits VERSUS a masterbatory story-telling, play-acting, let's all play make-believe, insecure ego boosting "look at me I'm heroic" because the GM has our story-with-a-happy-ending all set out at the beginning of his "campaign". That other style/diceless play is not a GAME. In a game, there's a chance to lose. I didn't come to this industry to be a frickin' amateur thespian.

To me, buried in that quote is the difference.

Quote from: greylond;456911Discussion of "Storytelling" vs actual Games always makes me think of one of my favorite Dave Kenzer quotes.



To me, buried in that quote is the difference.

As I said upthread, story-games are a direct reaction to the type of game-style and GMing Kenzer is talking about.  They are not masturbatory because they are setup so that no one is "writing" a story before-hand, but so that story emerges from actual play.

"Storytelling", as in the GMing style in traditional games, vs traditional GMing techniques is another debate entirely, an older one from the 90s.

Dave's point is that in the end, there is no real danger. PCs aren't in mortal danger because there is a projected point in the future where they resolve a conflict. In Games, with true random chance, anyone could die at any moment. There is no, "That character can't die because it would ruin my plot/storyline that I've mapped out" element...

Quote from: greylond;456915Dave's point is that in the end, there is no real danger. PCs aren't in mortal danger because there is a projected point in the future where they resolve a conflict. In Games, with true random chance, anyone could die at any moment. There is no, "That character can't die because it would ruin my plot/storyline that I've mapped out" element...

In "storytelling" GMing as put forth by White-Wolf, not actual story-games.

IME, the terms are used thusly:

Role-playing games are what I play, while storygames are what they play, where "they" refers to some group you are trying to disparage.

Quote from: Fifth Element;456918IME, the terms are used thusly:

Role-playing games are what I play, while storygames are what they play, where "they" refers to some group you are trying to disparage.

Do yourself a favor and read the thread before you start blathering that kind of nonsense, Iain.

I GMed Vampire the first two years it was out. I wasn't impressed. Sure characters could die but the style of GMing/play that I most often encountered, and from what I could tell was pushed by WW was "story telling" with the PCs living to the end of the campaign. After that I went back to Twilight 2000, Boot Hill, Traveller and AD&D.

I've played(and primarily GM'ed) just about everything that was produced up to about 1996 when I had to scale way back on gaming. I've GM'ed everything from Amber and Theatrix to AD&D and everything in between, including(but not limited to) a few off the top of my head; Traveller, TW2k, Elfquest(not proud of it, but yea), Toon, T&T(player only), Shatterzone, Boot Hill, Gama World, AD&D. So, yea, I've been there, I've played "story games" and IMO, they suck. I went back to games that are true "Games" and involve random events and dice rolling. Now, there are some elements that I found I could use from them, like I do actually have a storyline/plot envisioned when I setup a game, but Let The Dice Fall Where They May...

Quote from: Peregrin;456913As I said upthread, story-games are a direct reaction to the type of game-style and GMing Kenzer is talking about.  They are not masturbatory because they are setup so that no one is "writing" a story before-hand, but so that story emerges from actual play.

"Storytelling", as in the GMing style in traditional games, vs traditional GMing techniques is another debate entirely, an older one from the 90s.

Which means, as I've always said: Storygaming comes from bad GMing.  People get railroaded into constantly having the GM run or otherwise constrain their choices and so they look for some other game.

Unfortunately, a lot of them end up in Storygames.  In Storygames, the story doesn't emerge from actual ICPOV play, it emerges from directorial/authorial decisions by players, the roleplay is really the natural byproduct of the story-building metagame.

In a properly run RPG, those players would get what they wanted - IC choices. With good roleplay with a good GM, the story is a natural by product of the in-character roleplay.

greylong, I think your definition of story-game may be different from the definition of story-game some people here are using.  Have you played any indie games from 2000 on?  Sorcerer, InSpectres, Shadow of Yesterday, Donjon, My Life with Master, etc.?  Those games involve a fair amount of dice rolling and unexpected outcomes, although the hangup for most people are the meta mechanics, not the lack of challenge.

Quote from: CKKruegerWhich means, as I've always said: Storygaming comes from bad GMing. People get railroaded into constantly having the GM run or otherwise constrain their choices and so they look for some other game.

Unfortunately, a lot of them end up in Storygames. In Storygames, the story doesn't emerge from actual ICPOV play, it emerges from directorial/authorial decisions by players, the roleplay is really the natural byproduct of the story-building metagame.

In a properly run RPG, those players would get what they wanted - IC choices. With good roleplay with a good GM, the story is a natural by product of the in-character roleplay.

Not so, because if you're truly emulating a world and not artificially orchestrating events, there is no guarantee it will "just happen."  It can happen, but there is no guarantee.

The use of "story" as you're using it and the use of "story" as story-gamers (if there is such a thing, I just play games, so I prefer "gamer") are very different.  

I also don't see story-game design as necessarily from bad GMing, although some of the design has come about because the lack of guidance (or bad guidance) in prior texts did lead to dysfunctional gaming.  Most of the time they just involve useful techniques to manipulate the flow of the game and push towards conflict in a way that world-in-motion does not (at least in the traditional GM, keeper of the world, and PCs, with imperfect information, format).  

I've probably stated this 3-4 times elsewhere, but I ran a 3-year campaign of Exalted, and not once did I ever write a "story" for the players.  I ran it as trad as you possibly can.  We had good sessions and bad sessions, but during one particular session I could tell the players weren't really interested in what was presented to them, so I stopped, asked them what they thought would be cool to happen, and I used that as a springboard for some improv.  The players loved it, and I never saw them more involved in what was going on in the game.  Is this bad for immersion?  That depends on the individual.  I never received any complaints about it from any of my five players.  But when I saw what indie and story-games were doing with it, my first thought wasn't "OMGWTFBBQ BAD GMing SCARRED THESE PEOPLE!", it was, "Oh, hey, they're using formalized techniques similar to what I was messing around with.  Cool."

It's not just bad GMing.  People play story-games because they want a different type of experience in their game, the same reason people played RuneQuest over D&D or vice versa.  The game is structured to give a particular play experience, and like I said before, I think it'd be more useful if a game just came out and said what it did rather than relying on broad and fuzzy labels.  Fiasco certainly plays nothing like Sorcerer, and that plays nothing like InSpectres.

Quote from: CRKrueger;456921Which means, as I've always said: Storygaming comes from bad GMing.  People get railroaded into constantly having the GM run or otherwise constrain their choices and so they look for some other game.

I think you're right about this.

QuoteUnfortunately, a lot of them end up in Storygames.  In Storygames, the story doesn't emerge from actual ICPOV play, it emerges from directorial/authorial decisions by players, the roleplay is really the natural byproduct of the story-building metagame.

In a properly run RPG, those players would get what they wanted - IC choices. With good roleplay with a good GM, the story is a natural by product of the in-character roleplay.

I don't think that fans of story-games would necessarily be happier limiting themselves to in-character choices, even if they had great GMs. Look, most of them were probably sucked in RPing because of the hype on packaging and in the introductory text, which talked about "story". Even if the text didn't go any farther than that, the things that the reader could project onto "story" might well imply things that are incompatible, if not antithetical to IC-POV--like being able to guide or control things using "narrative control".

Quote from: Peregrin;456923greylong, I think your definition of story-game may be different from the definition of story-game some people here are using.  Have you played any indie games from 2000 on?  

Depends on your definition of "Indie." Once I found HackMaster, I never looked back! K&Co produces the exact style of game that I lurve. Kick your ass, RP intensive, sarcastic, Dice rolling goodness. Then came A&8's and that's it. I have a very limited schedule for playing games and since most of the time I end up GMing, I want to GM something that I have fun with.