Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081404Say that the players say that and the GM's response is, "Oh... well, this is actually all I had planned. Sorry guys! OK, nobody seems to like where this is going. So let's set this down and do something else, but I'm going to need time to set up a new game so next week I'll take input and we will come up with a new campaign to play."

This doesn't make make sense, dealing with Queen Euphoria is a goal leading to a series of adventures. It is not a campaign as it traditionally understood which is centered on a setting with things going on one of which being the deal with Queen Euphoria.

Even if I started with the campaign with the premise of using something like Paizo's Kingmaker as the foundation. It still part of the larger Golarion setting. So the campaign doesn't have to end just because the PCs want to bail on the Riverlands. I may need to look at what around the Riverlands and spend a week or two fleshing that out. But something that happens when players are given freedom to freely choose.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081404Further, assuming it's a good gaming group, they're all OK with that and they all agree to go set up a new Wilderlands of High Fantasy game instead.

This is the way they roll and they all have a great time together, so when a campaign just utterly fails... meh, try again with something else. Were they engaging in a storygame because the GM simply wasn't able to adapt and knew it?

Or they visited Greece didn't like and decided to go to Italy instead.

There are multiple levels of things going on .

1) they find the setting uninteresting
2) they find what they doing in the setting uninteresting and what to do something different.
3) Similiar to #2 however it a case where they found something else within the setting that more interesting to do. (which happened to Blackmoor after the Castle Blackmoor Dungeons were introduced).

Now #1 generally means a new campaign will be in the works. Your example of was of an adventure within a campaign so I didn't bring it up. #2 and #3 happen all the time in my campaigns. And I seen it happen in other campaigns. The worst cases aside from the referee getting upset out of game, is that the referee needs end early to put in some work for the next session.

Now it not a random melange of things going.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081404If so, then the definition of storygame seems to not rest with solely the game, but with the GM.

That my point. It about focus not rules. Focus is a characteristic of human beings. However it not just the referee has to be focused on running the campaign as a storygame, it has to be the group. The same for wargames and tabletop roleplaying games. Otherwise it an out of game issue that has to be resolved like any thing else does within a small group.

That the rules of Melee and focus one way it is a wargame, focus another way it is a tabletop roleplaying game. Because so many people in the early 80s were say "Hey I find this really useful in my tabletop roleplaying campaign" Steve Jackson was inspired to right Into the Labyrinth.

There is a similar motive behind storygames, people don't just want to feel like they are visiting Middle Earth, they want to feel like they are in a story like Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit or one of the chapters of the Silmarillion.

Which is fine but not the same thing that tabletop roleplaying does. Which allows you to visit another place as a character and do interesting things.

Think of it like the difference between planning for a trip to some exotic location versus staging a play about that same exotic location with a script you wrote yourself. Both are about what unique about that location. But are focused on two entirely two different things.

The innovation of tabletop roleplaying is that you can take that trip with just some pen, paper, maybe dice, and a human referee. And more importantly do in a way that fun and interesting within the time you have for a hobby.

The innovation of storygames is that they make collaborative storytelling fun and interesting and gives the whole thing a structure that works within the time one has for a hobby.

But they are not focused on the same things even when using the same settings and characters or in rare cases the same rules.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081406...it really should be though. History-as-pop-culture is a thing. A lot of what we view of history is a story we flat out made up from facts that kind of look like that if you squint at it just right. (But note that a lot is not, necessarily, the majority of history.)

I don't know. I think there are more story oriented historians for sure. But every historian who constructs a narrative (which means something pretty different in history than in other disciplines) isn't necessarily thinking in terms of story. Literally the way I was taught to do it was to assemble my facts, notes, etc in Index cards, then lay them out in chronological sequence. There was actually a bit of contempt if you were too good at telling a story with it. The analysis is the part that was more valued. That said, a book like the Cheese and the Worms reads really nicely. So I am not saying historians never tell good stories.

QuoteSo you're not really bothered by the storygame/RPG schism that seems to be going on here? (Truth be told, I'm not either; just confused by the schism itself. I agree wholeheartedly with have whatever people want in their games and don't try to convince others to adopt your tastes. That's why I'm engaging in this conversation, the exclusion of storygames seems arbitrary to control someone else's play style and de-legitimize it. So I'm looking for the why. It seems to be engaging in behavior that this forum says it hates.)

Not really bothered at all. Like I said I only get bothered when people try to convince me I like something I don't, or try to convince me I am doing something I don't, or try to undermine language in these kinds of discussions. I want people to play the games they like.

Quote from: estar;1081409Now #1 generally means a new campaign will be in the works. Your example of was of an adventure within a campaign so I didn't bring it up. #2 and #3 happen all the time in my campaigns. And I seen it happen in other campaigns. The worst cases aside from the referee getting upset out of game, is that the referee needs end early to put in some work for the next session.

Now it not a random melange of things going.

Not ignoring the earlier stuff, I just have nothing more to contribute to it. It's all good and helpful.

So I think I see where you're coming from and going with this. Thanks for helping me.

QuoteThat my point. It about focus not rules. Focus is a characteristic of human beings. However it not just the referee has to be focused on running the campaign as a storygame, it has to be the group. The same for wargames and tabletop roleplaying games. Otherwise it an out of game issue that has to be resolved like any thing else does within a small group.

That the rules of Melee and focus one way it is a wargame, focus another way it is a tabletop roleplaying game. Because so many people in the early 80s were say "Hey I find this really useful in my tabletop roleplaying campaign" Steve Jackson was inspired to right Into the Labyrinth.

There is a similar motive behind storygames, people don't just want to feel like they are visiting Middle Earth, they want to feel like they are in a story like Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit or one of the chapters of the Silmarillion.

Which is fine but not the same thing that tabletop roleplaying does. Which allows you to visit another place as a character and do interesting things.

Think of it like the difference between planning for a trip to some exotic location versus staging a play about that same exotic location with a script you wrote yourself. Both are about what unique about that location. But are focused on two entirely two different things.

The innovation of tabletop roleplaying is that you can take that trip with just some pen, paper, maybe dice, and a human referee. And more importantly do in a way that fun and interesting within the time you have for a hobby.

The innovation of storygames is that they make collaborative storytelling fun and interesting and gives the whole thing a structure that works within the time one has for a hobby.

But they are not focused on the same things even when using the same settings and characters or in rare cases the same rules.

So if I am understanding this right it's not three categories, but more like 3 axis on a chart and there's a universe in between that you could place a particular game run by a group, and perhaps a game itself based on what the rules are encouraging. However, some games will slide all over that plane based more on how they're instantiated by the group playing it.

Is that a fair assessment of what you wrote?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1081410I don't know. I think there are more story oriented historians for sure. But every historian who constructs a narrative (which means something pretty different in history than in other disciplines) isn't necessarily thinking in terms of story. Literally the way I was taught to do it was to assemble my facts, notes, etc in Index cards, then lay them out in chronological sequence. There was actually a bit of contempt if you were too good at telling a story with it. The analysis is the part that was more valued. That said, a book like the Cheese and the Worms reads really nicely. So I am not saying historians never tell good stories.

That's fair enough!

QuoteNot really bothered at all. Like I said I only get bothered when people try to convince me I like something I don't, or try to convince me I am doing something I don't, or try to undermine language in these kinds of discussions. I want people to play the games they like.

I hope I'm not seen as trying to undermine the language here as I seek and question definitions (to see how they hold up).

I too want people to play the games they like, even if I don't like them. I suspect we're the same in that.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081428So if I am understanding this right it's not three categories, but more like 3 axis on a chart and there's a universe in between that you could place a particular game run by a group, and perhaps a game itself based on what the rules are encouraging. However, some games will slide all over that plane based more on how they're instantiated by the group playing it.

Is that a fair assessment of what you wrote?

Yes, hybrids are the norm not the exception. Most campaigns are a little bit of that and and little bit of this whether it is storygames, tabletop RPGs, or wargames.

The only way to figure what is what is to observe the group and see what their primary concern is and how they deal with it. So if they are using FATE and mostly focus on pretending to be character in a setting then it likely would be recognizable as tabletop roleplaying.

In another group's hands could be that the Fate economy is the primary focus with everybody contributing narrative and setting elements to a unfolding story. One's character presents an important element of the unfolding story the player is responsible fore. Then it would likely be viewed as a storygame.

Or a groups really like the starship combat system in Starblazers Adventure (a Fate RPG) and focus on that and run a wargame campaign. I wouldn't say it likely but the rules are there in Starblazer Adventures.

And as far what category a set of rules  is in, you observe how much work it save in running a particular type of campaign.

Quote from: estar;1081389Except the players as their character have the option to say fuck stopping Queen Euphoria and do something different. A tabletop roleplaying referee is not being realistic if they expect their players to stay on track just because they bought or created a adventure with a specific goal in mind.

If I have bought Queen Euphoria and taken the time to read through it and adapt it to the current team of runners, that is what we're going to play. Sabotaging that would be a dick move by the players.

Quote from: estar;10814091) they find the setting uninteresting
2) they find what they doing in the setting uninteresting and what to do something different.
3) Similiar to #2 however it a case where they found something else within the setting that more interesting to do. (which happened to Blackmoor after the Castle Blackmoor Dungeons were introduced).

Than they should have said so before I bought and/or prepped the scenario for the evening.

Quote from: estar;1081389Unlike a wargame where the whole exercise rides on everybody competing (or cooperating in some cases) with each other to achieve a set of victory conditions. Finally if a campaign using tabletop roleplaying rules is nothing more than a bunch of scenarios with victory conditions. Say like organized play, then it little different than a sophisticated wargame campaign. In fact many storygame edge into the wargame territory because their focus is so narrow and oriented towards a particular kind of outcome.

The wargame-equivalent to the above would be not wanting to play Memoir '44 but rather insisting on playing ASL even though your buddy hasn't even read the rules yet. Or: your adversary agrees to play Memor '44 after all but then moves his counters off the map, sabotaging the scenario because he doesn't want to play it.

Don't get me wrong: if a GM is willing to put aside his prep and improvise for the sake of player freedom that is fine. But it's not a must and it's not the ultimate panacea to role-playing either. It's one style of play. Playing roughly within the confines of a carefully prepped scenario is another. It comes down to a matter of taste.

Quote from: estar;1081389Sounds like how it supposed to work to me. The only thing that can't be ignored is the setting of the campaign as that defines how the reality works.

This sounds a lot like onetruewayism. I have to object to this. It's one play-style for one type of players. All the other extreme play-styles mentioned before are equally valid - if they work for the group in question, that is.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1081394Also is it fair to call sports journalism writing a story? Wouldn't it be more precise to call it an 'account'.

I am pretty sure that an important part to journalism (not just sports) is making "the account" thrilling and exciting. Only news that is entertaining sells after all. And that's where narrative techniques of dramatization come in. You're right about analysis being also important though. But the Critical Role cast talks about their sessions afterwards also. So, it's not all that different. All part of the entertainment business.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1081410I don't know. I think there are more story oriented historians for sure. But every historian who constructs a narrative (which means something pretty different in history than in other disciplines) isn't necessarily thinking in terms of story. Literally the way I was taught to do it was to assemble my facts, notes, etc in Index cards, then lay them out in chronological sequence. There was actually a bit of contempt if you were too good at telling a story with it. The analysis is the part that was more valued. That said, a book like the Cheese and the Worms reads really nicely. So I am not saying historians never tell good stories.

Sure. But what do I see on TV? Not dry historical documentaries but docudramas with paid actors, accompanied by dramatic scores. People love dramatization. (It's part of why I am aiming at cinematic combat. )
I'd love to see more dry facts in news/politics and history though.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081445I am pretty sure that an important part to journalism (not just sports) is making "the account" thrilling and exciting. Only news that is entertaining sells after all. And that's where narrative techniques of dramatization come in. You're right about analysis being also important though. But the Critical Role cast talks about their sessions afterwards also. So, it's not all that different. All part of the entertainment business.

I think again, it depends on the news outlet or journalist, just like it depends on the historian. I don't think news has to be, or should be entertainment. At least not in its highest or ideal form. Yes, there are techniques for adding a touch of drama to a story. I am no expert, but I used to some local reporting and occasionally editors would ask us to lead in with a section that painted a picture of the scene. To me this always felt like the least objective part of my article though and I never liked doing it.

If critical role wants to discuss their session, and paint it in story terms, I am fine with that. If they want their sessions to flow like a story, I am fine with that. All I am saying is I think the argument that 'story is inevitable and automatic when things happen', is a bit of a linguistic trick in this particular debate. One it makes story so broad, it doesn't really have any meaning (and if it is that unavoidable, well it doesn't really matter what you do anyways). But what tends to happen is that broad meaning is used as a launching pad for equivocation that leads to 'RPGs should be about this kind of storytelling'. Again, no problem at all with 'this kind of storytelling'. My issue is the way an ought is being injected into design discussions by a questionable rhetorical argument built around undermining the words people use.

QuoteSure. But what do I see on TV? Not dry historical documentaries but docudramas with paid actors, accompanied by dramatic scores. People love dramatization. (It's part of why I am aiming at cinematic combat. )
I'd love to see more dry facts in news/politics and history though.

Of course. One of my favorite series is I, Claudius. I loved Terry Jone's documentary on the crusades back when it came out. There is nothing wrong with this stuff. I am just pointing out, if you talk to historians, they generally are a little skeptical of those who tell good stories (because the goal of a historian isn't to entertain). But like I said, you get some brilliant things like The Cheese and the Worms. And you can even get great historical fiction, like The Name of the Rose. And there is nothing wrong with history written in an entertaining fashion in order to help reach a wider audience (I used to read all those Michael Grant books on Rome for example----my history professors dismissed them, but I found them to be very helpful getting me to remember the key details). The point is just that people always act like everything in humanity leads to story, that story is prime (and I think this is largely a product of a narrative we get on popular TV shows written by people whose profession is to tell good stories). But if you dig into history, it isn't really about story in my view. Sometimes a story of sorts is constructed in order to explain the chronology, but its definitely viewed with some amount of caution. For history evidence, text, artifacts, are more important than the need to tell a good story.

Quote from: Omega;1081386No. No it does not. A rock from space is not telling any story at all. It is a rock from space.

Yes, it does.  Just because it doesn't narrate it, doesn't mean the time it took getting to 'here' isn't a story.  How did it get here, why did it?  What happened during it's travels?  All things that are a progression of events that make the story of a thousand year old stone from our asteroid belt.

Quote from: Omega;1081386Again this is the main problem many have with storygamers. You want to redefine terms to literally mean "everything on earth" at which point the term becomes less than meaningless. It is now utterly useless.

But, HUMANS ARE BUILT on stories.  They may not be interesting, a person LIFE is a series of experiences that you can put together to KNOW something. maybe the way they lived can teach you something, whether how to avoid something, or how to make your life better.

And Role Playing Games, even if they don't follow the ideas behind Fate or Amber Diceless or...  TORG or D&D, are mechanisms to make adventures and stories.  Again, they may not follow the typical formula, but you can recount them, put a spin, use them to learn, again, STORIES are part of EVERYTHING we do.

See, we're arguing about definitions of commonly understood terms again and that never leads anywhere. If there is any disagreements, you'll just have to preface your texts with a short explanation of what you understand under "story" in the given context.

So, for the record: for me about everything involving change is story but in roleplaying games we're aiming at particular stories, usually dramatized stories, made interesting and entertaining and occasionally enlightening. And that requires skill.

As it turns out it nuanced

And for the record I tried to be clear that when I talk about story I am referring to definition 1. An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.

NOUN
1 An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
'an adventure story'
'I'm going to tell you a story'

1.1 A plot or storyline.
'the novel has a good story'

1.2 A report of an item of news in a newspaper, magazine, or broadcast.
'stories in the local papers'

1.3 A piece of gossip; a rumour.
'there have been lots of stories going around, as you can imagine'

1.4 informal A false statement; a lie.
'Ellie never told stories--she had always believed in the truth'

Synonyms
2 An account of past events in someone's life or in the development of something.
'the story of modern farming'
'the film is based on a true story'

2.1 A particular person's representation of the facts of a matter.
'during police interviews, Harper changed his story'

2.2 in singular A situation viewed in terms of the information known about it or its similarity to another.
'having such information is useful, but it is not the whole story'
'United kept on trying but it was the same old story--no luck'


2.3 the storyinformal The facts about the present situation.
'What's the story on this man? Is he from around here?'

3 The commercial prospects or circumstances of a particular company.
'the investors' flight to profitable businesses with solid stories'

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081445If I have bought Queen Euphoria and taken the time to read through it and adapt it to the current team of runners, that is what we're going to play. Sabotaging that would be a dick move by the players.

1) You did not mention that in your original example. So why include it now?
2) That has nothing to do with how tabletop roleplaying campaigns are run. That situation between you and those you game with. If everybody wishes to decide out of game to limit their choices so the campaign can play out the product you purchase then great. However that is as relevant to campaign or game design as every player deciding to name their character with a name that starts with the letter B.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081445Than they should have said so before I bought and/or prepped the scenario for the evening.

If the situation is what described above then sure. But again wasn't stated, hinted at, or implied by your original example. And still part of the social dynamics of a small group cooperating as to opposed to how tabletop roleplaying campaign are run.

Unless this is talked about out of game beforehand then the referee should not expect the players to stay on script just because they dumped $40 on a RPG product. In addition I seen it go multiple ways. More than a few time I been part of or seen where the referee bought a product and jams it into the campaign and gets bent when the players don't stay on script.

Personally I think what you described above is an idiotic thing to do put the player or ask them to do. I made a mistake doing that with Dragonlance 30+ years ago and I never repeated it since. If that how you roll with your group fine. But it not what I do.

For example, I had a good month of sales and decided I was going to get some of the D&D 5e products on Roll20 to see how it worked out. So I bought the PHB, Xanathar, and the Dungeon of the Mad Mage. The campaign is being set in my Blackmarsh setting and I figure I would just adapt as the Castle Blackmarsh dungeon if they decided to explore them. As it turned out it they decided to do just that. And they figure out that I bought the Mad Mage dungeon off of Roll20. One player wasn't thrilled with the decision to go dungeon crawling. One reason was because of my purchase he felt the other would feel obligated to explore the dungeon. So the next session, I gave my standard spiel when this comes up. Don't worry about what I bought or worked on. Just do what you want to do and go where you want to go. The worst that will happen is that end a session early and we will pick up it the next week after I did some prep.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081445Don't get me wrong: if a GM is willing to put aside his prep and improvise for the sake of player freedom that is fine. But it's not a must and it's not the ultimate panacea to role-playing either. It's one style of play. Playing roughly within the confines of a carefully prepped scenario is another. It comes down to a matter of taste.

If you say no to what a player want to do because it doesn't focus on the scenario and define victory conditions that has to be met then you are refereeing a wargame campaign where the players playing individual and acting cooperatively. Stuff that was done before Blackmoor in the early 70s.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081445This sounds a lot like onetruewayism. I have to object to this. It's one play-style for one type of players. All the other extreme play-styles mentioned before are equally valid - if they work for the group in question, that is.

Wargames , storygames and hybrids are fun. Never contended otherwise.

I would like to recall where this originated from - my following post (emphasis added):

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081368When you run a pre-published adventure, your RPG session usually has a goal. "Stop Queen Euphoria" in Shadowrun isn't really any different from "Take Hill 419" in a wargame. The real difference to me seems the shift away from leading armies or units to running a single person, in particular a person with a distinct personality, as pioneered in those Braunstein wargames and later developed into its own game form. [...]

So that was the context of my following remarks.

Quote from: estar;1081528If you say no to what a player want to do because it doesn't focus on the scenario and define victory conditions that has to be met then you are refereeing a wargame campaign where the players playing individual and acting cooperatively. Stuff that was done before Blackmoor in the early 70s.

Thought experiment: if I run a MERP scenario in which the objective is to go to king Theoden and get him to open a trade line to, say, Fornost (victory condition) and swaying the king's mind can only be accomplished through role-play (as opposed to rolling social skills), am I playing a wargame?

For me personally, it's not about having objectives. For me, it's about running an individual only and adding characterization to it that draws the line between wargame and RPG. Your mileage may vary though.

But all of this is kinda arguing definitions of commonly understood terms again and that's never very useful. I have resolved to want to stay out of those, apparently without much success.
We all know that Warhammer 40K is a wargame while Dark Heresy is an RPG. I'm not sure debating the exact delineation between both types of games is very fruitful. Better to talk about actual games, don't you agree?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081490So, for the record: for me about everything involving change is story but in roleplaying games we're aiming at particular stories, usually dramatized stories, made interesting and entertaining and occasionally enlightening. And that requires skill.

I just can't agree with this definition of story as everything involving change. Even beyond discussions of RPGs, it appears like an idea that positions story as a theory of everything. Once you say change=story, then everything under the sun is story. And I just don't think that is true. I think it moves story away from a thing people create (which is really what a story is IMO).

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081537Thought experiment: if I run a MERP scenario in which the objective is to go to king Theoden and get him to open a trade line to, say, Fornost (victory condition) and swaying the king's mind can only be accomplished through role-play (as opposed to rolling social skills), am I playing a wargame?

if the campaigns end as a result achieving or not achieving the victory then it is a strong indication that a wargame campaign is being run.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081537Better to talk about actual games, don't you agree?

Sure what the different between Battletech (a wargame) and Mechwarrior (a RPG)

The different between Melee or Wizard (wargames) and In the Labyrinth (a RPG).

The rules of each wargame are used directly in both RPGs. It not a step removed like the difference between Warhammer 40K and Dark Heresy. When you need to resolve a battle between two Battlemechs in Mechwarrior you supposed to use Battletech. Likewise the rules of Melee form the core of the combat system for In the Labyrinth, and the magic system of Wizards is also the magic system of In the Labyrinth. Battletech, Melee, and Wizards were published prior to the release of the RPGs. Both RPGs were released in response to fans of the wargaming wanting an RPG to accompany the war games. Battletech because of it rich backstory, and Melee/Wizards because many had fun with both and the next step was to say "Hey why don't I use this in lieu of D&D combat system or D&D's magic system."