Quote from: Itachi;1078038Can you elaborate on that? Never played Amber but by reading it I get the impression it's actual play is fairly traditional but with some narrativist gimmicks (like the attribute auction): no OOC features, no enforcement of genre, structuring of campaign fully on GM's shoulders, full GM fiat/no player empowerment, etc.

Also, it's take on "story" reads more like the traditional, late 80s take as seen in Vampire and Dragonlance (aka GM takes players through his pre-made story) than the emergent/collaborative take as seen in the Forge.

Sure! But that's also where I say "nascent" as in the ideas weren't really all that formalized yet.

Two of the largest tools that exists in Amber to enforce the OOC features and genre is in "player contributions" to get more points (which can include drawings, recording of journals, etc etc... there's a list of them) and Stuff (Good, Bad, Zero). Stuff basically is an early metacurrency as you're buying or selling luck with it in the hopes of creating certain effects (which were more at the whim of the GM than at the player's behest, but, again, Amber is somewhat old).

Amber's full GM fiat is one of those things where Amber seems to end up standing on its own: while it does have it, no sane GM would ever be able to effectively consider all of the player's options to derail the plot, nor should he. The players have broad, broad ability to mess with things through the sheer, mind-bogglingly complex nature of Shadow and the tricks you can pull with Pattern, Logrus, or other abilities. While the GM could ultimately say, "no" (hence the fiat portion) it's clearly intended that cleverness gets rewarded, as fits its particular genre.

The ability of players to actively manipulate the story through endless variations of Shadow seems to me to be a precursor to more meta-narrative aspects seen in later games. While not express with it, that would seem to be the next logical step.

Does that help or did I completely misunderstand the scale?

Quote from: Omega;1077335Universalis is a storygame. Bordering on storytelling with some game in there.

Mythic is an odd one probably in the middle if you are using the GM emulator. It is purely player driven. But it still functions like a standard RPG in play since the player is predominantly asking the oracle questions and reacting, rather than dictating as it were.

Those are the only two I have had any real experience with.

Unfortunately storygame fans are most often utterly unreliable to ask what a storygame is. They sure as hell seem to not know what role playing is two thirds of the time, or more.

Bemusingly, Vampire, Werewolf and Aberrant are not storygames or storytelling games despite WW's claims. They are fairly standard RPGs.

What about FFGs new Star Wars RPG? The one with the funky oracle dice? Every account I have heard of how it plays seem to indicate it is a hybrid possibly leaning to storygame?

FFG's games *can* be run like a "narrativist". Or you can run them as a straightforward RPG.

Edit: I think it's very much RAW a hybrid with leanings toward narrativist. But they provide ample room to run straight RPG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1077415Good to know a decade or so after all the screaming and going to the mattresses over me suggesting terms like Narrative RPG and Traditional RPG, narrative peeps feel safe enough now to finally admit the truth, that there is a difference.

HAH! you've been waiting for that, haven't you?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078029On the scale Itachi provided? I'd put Amber pretty hard in the Storygames side, but a much older and more nascent expression of it. (And I love Amber.)

Don't say that!  Pundit will be upset!  I mean, being the precursor to Fate is enough to get his ire up.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078046Sure! But that's also where I say "nascent" as in the ideas weren't really all that formalized yet.

Two of the largest tools that exists in Amber to enforce the OOC features and genre is in "player contributions" to get more points (which can include drawings, recording of journals, etc etc... there's a list of them) and Stuff (Good, Bad, Zero). Stuff basically is an early metacurrency as you're buying or selling luck with it in the hopes of creating certain effects (which were more at the whim of the GM than at the player's behest, but, again, Amber is somewhat old).

Amber's full GM fiat is one of those things where Amber seems to end up standing on its own: while it does have it, no sane GM would ever be able to effectively consider all of the player's options to derail the plot, nor should he. The players have broad, broad ability to mess with things through the sheer, mind-bogglingly complex nature of Shadow and the tricks you can pull with Pattern, Logrus, or other abilities. While the GM could ultimately say, "no" (hence the fiat portion) it's clearly intended that cleverness gets rewarded, as fits its particular genre.

The ability of players to actively manipulate the story through endless variations of Shadow seems to me to be a precursor to more meta-narrative aspects seen in later games. While not express with it, that would seem to be the next logical step.

Does that help or did I completely misunderstand the scale?

Awesome description! So, it seems Amber tried lots of new ideas that indeed resonate with what Storygames tried to do later. I  still think there's enough traditional sensibilities in this soup to warrant it at least a "hybrid" label, but I can see the argument for Storygames too.

Thanks, Wulf!

Quote from: Razor 007;1077322Which Games are considered Story Games, and which Are Not?
It would help me better understand which systems people are hating on.

I'm not picking sides, I'd just like to understand where the line is.

Story games don't break when bad die rolls are made.
Non-story games don't allow for plot, because bad die rolls.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1078121Story games don't break when bad die rolls are made.
Non-story games don't allow for plot, because bad die rolls.

Storygames also don't allow for plot, at least not in the Vampire/Dragonlance "GM's plot" sense. Stories in storygames happen collaboratively or in an emergent way from players decisions.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1078121Non-story games don't allow for plot, because bad die rolls.

I've never found that to be true. I have found I've had to adjust the story, but if the whole story is riding on a single or a couple of bad die rolls, reconsider how the story is structured (or be sure you have a backup plan for if it goes wrong).

It helps to be very good at statistics too.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078127I've never found that to be true. I have found I've had to adjust the story, but if the whole story is riding on a single or a couple of bad die rolls, reconsider how the story is structured (or be sure you have a backup plan for if it goes wrong).

It helps to be very good at statistics too.

Or to use introduce heroes luck as a limited safety net.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078046Sure! But that's also where I say "nascent" as in the ideas weren't really all that formalized yet.

Two of the largest tools that exists in Amber to enforce the OOC features and genre is in "player contributions" to get more points (which can include drawings, recording of journals, etc etc... there's a list of them) and Stuff (Good, Bad, Zero). Stuff basically is an early metacurrency as you're buying or selling luck with it in the hopes of creating certain effects (which were more at the whim of the GM than at the player's behest, but, again, Amber is somewhat old).

Amber's full GM fiat is one of those things where Amber seems to end up standing on its own: while it does have it, no sane GM would ever be able to effectively consider all of the player's options to derail the plot, nor should he. The players have broad, broad ability to mess with things through the sheer, mind-bogglingly complex nature of Shadow and the tricks you can pull with Pattern, Logrus, or other abilities. While the GM could ultimately say, "no" (hence the fiat portion) it's clearly intended that cleverness gets rewarded, as fits its particular genre.

The ability of players to actively manipulate the story through endless variations of Shadow seems to me to be a precursor to more meta-narrative aspects seen in later games. While not express with it, that would seem to be the next logical step.

Does that help or did I completely misunderstand the scale?

Have you actually played Amber or just read the book? I ask because while it might look like what you're saying is true, it's not in actual play. Like the player contributions thing...that's just a mechanism to allow some characters to have more points during creation at the expense of doing work to help the campaign. It has NOTHING to do with impacting the game itself beyond maybe being able to afford Advanced Pattern instead of Pattern. It'd be the same thing as if the DM gave your fighter an 18 STR so you could roll percentile dice but you had to do his laundry for a month. Players being able to manipulate the environment is an ability that makes perfect sense within the game itself; it in no way is "meta" like a storygame, i.e. has no true in-game explanation.

Quote from: Brad;1078187Have you actually played Amber or just read the book? I ask because while it might look like what you're saying is true, it's not in actual play. Like the player contributions thing...that's just a mechanism to allow some characters to have more points during creation at the expense of doing work to help the campaign. It has NOTHING to do with impacting the game itself beyond maybe being able to afford Advanced Pattern instead of Pattern. It'd be the same thing as if the DM gave your fighter an 18 STR so you could roll percentile dice but you had to do his laundry for a month. Players being able to manipulate the environment is an ability that makes perfect sense within the game itself; it in no way is "meta" like a storygame, i.e. has no true in-game explanation.

The amount of bending over backwards to change the meaning of the mechanics to weasel out of being a 'Storygame' is amazing.  This post is a wonder!  Incredible!

Quote from: Brad;1078187Have you actually played Amber or just read the book? I ask because while it might look like what you're saying is true, it's not in actual play. Like the player contributions thing...that's just a mechanism to allow some characters to have more points during creation at the expense of doing work to help the campaign. It has NOTHING to do with impacting the game itself beyond maybe being able to afford Advanced Pattern instead of Pattern. It'd be the same thing as if the DM gave your fighter an 18 STR so you could roll percentile dice but you had to do his laundry for a month. Players being able to manipulate the environment is an ability that makes perfect sense within the game itself; it in no way is "meta" like a storygame, i.e. has no true in-game explanation.

Yes. All the time. And I've been to Ambercon plenty too (used to live almost across the street from it).

I'm sorry your experience has been so limited.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078197The amount of bending over backwards to change the meaning of the mechanics to weasel out of being a 'Storygame' is amazing.  This post is a wonder!  Incredible!

I know... it does kind of read like, "This isn't a storygame at all! Look at all these nascent story game mechanics! See how it's not a storygame?!"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078197The amount of bending over backwards to change the meaning of the mechanics to weasel out of being a 'Storygame' is amazing.  This post is a wonder!  Incredible!

Pretty sure you're illiterate if that's what you think I said.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078222Yes. All the time. And I've been to Ambercon plenty too (used to live almost across the street from it).

I'm sorry your experience has been so limited.

So I "didn't actually play it properly"? Okay.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078223I know... it does kind of read like, "This isn't a storygame at all! Look at all these nascent story game mechanics! See how it's not a storygame?!"

I thought you were supposed to be some sort of lawyer...are you going to just pretend I said something I didn't because it fits your narrative?

Quote from: Brad;1078228So I "didn't actually play it properly"? Okay.

I didn't say that. Sorry you feel the need to project your own inadequacies into my words.

QuoteI thought you were supposed to be some sort of lawyer...are you going to just pretend I said something I didn't because it fits your narrative?

I thought you were supposed to be some sort of scientist...are you dense enough to forget that I said I was NOT a lawyer?

Although... "pretending I said something I didn't because it fits your narrative" is a pretty apt description of criminal defense lawyers.