Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078229I didn't say that. Sorry you feel the need to project your own inadequacies into my words.

I'm sorry your experience has been so limited.

This implies there's something about the game I'm missing, hence "wrong". Or do you disagree? If you're not implying that, then how am I missing anything?

I disagree. You can experience something in a limited manner with that experience being perfectly valid and not wrong. The experience wasn't wrong, you didn't play it wrong. But your conclusion here is wrong.

It's a matter of degree, not black and white. D&D (5e and 4e optionally, IIRC), GURPS, etc., have metagame mechanics (inspiration, declarations), albeit in a very limited form.

However, the easiest distinction for me is a literal one: in role-playing games you're focused on playing a role, while in story games you're focused on creating a story.

I've wrote a bit about the subject here.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1078261It's a matter of degree, not black and white. D&D (5e and 4e optionally, IIRC), GURPS, etc., have metagame mechanics (inspiration, declarations), albeit in a very limited form.

However, the easiest distinction for me is a literal one: in role-playing games you're focused on playing a role, while in story games you're focused on creating a story.

I've wrote a bit about the subject here.

But that's not Pundit's definition.

I know I did this several threads on this topic ago, but lemme just toss it out again:

Amber Diceless Roleplaying, First Printing copyright 1991, Page 122:  Heading STORY COMPOSITION, and then it breaks down how to use story elements in Amber.  And Good Stuff/Bad Stuff allows EITHER (And it says so on page 106, heading:  Leaving Choice Up to the Players)  Players or the GM to narrate what happens involving that 'mechanic'.

It's pretty much the proto-origin of THE Story Game.  BUT, because it's Pundit's favouritest game ever, it'll never be.  According to him.  He'll wander in at some point of accusing me of hating Erick Wujcik, or whatnot.  I could defend myself and point out that my favourite games of Palladium Books are TMNT and Ninjas and Superspies, Mystic China is second on that list.  Hell, those two books awakened my love of Eastern style martial arts, but that's irrelevant.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078274But that's not Pundit's definition.

I know I did this several threads on this topic ago, but lemme just toss it out again:

Amber Diceless Roleplaying, First Printing copyright 1991, Page 122:  Heading STORY COMPOSITION, and then it breaks down how to use story elements in Amber.  And Good Stuff/Bad Stuff allows EITHER (And it says so on page 106, heading:  Leaving Choice Up to the Players)  Players or the GM to narrate what happens involving that 'mechanic'.

It's pretty much the proto-origin of THE Story Game.  BUT, because it's Pundit's favouritest game ever, it'll never be.  According to him.  He'll wander in at some point of accusing me of hating Erick Wujcik, or whatnot.  I could defend myself and point out that my favourite games of Palladium Books are TMNT and Ninjas and Superspies, Mystic China is second on that list.  Hell, those two books awakened my love of Eastern style martial arts, but that's irrelevant.

What is his definition?

Anyway, it is certainly not that clear-cut, becasue RPG authors do not necessarily see thing this way.

The "storyteller" system is not, at heart, a story-game, and even Mike Mearls was saying the point of D&D is "creating stories" or something. GURPS, the ultimate "simulationist" game, has reality-altering mechanics.

I don't know Amber Diceless Roleplaying enough to weight in on the subject. However, the mere fact that the game says you ahve to create story does not make it a story game. Having mechanics that ler you alter reality without reference to your PC's action would indicate that it is. Amber probably makes the distinction even more complex because your characters, IIRC, can alter reality by definition...

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1078373What is his definition?

He moves the goalposts every time, so I don't think he has one beyond it's not one of his 'approved' games.  I think reroll mechanics like Luck Points, Bennies, Hero Points, Plot Points are the one thing he points as 'Story Game'.

Which not only puts Fate, but other games like D&D 5e (Halflings and the Luck Feat), Champions, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds (all editions) and a slew of other games from the past 30 years, that I vaguely remember, in that category.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1078373Anyway, it is certainly not that clear-cut, becasue RPG authors do not necessarily see thing this way.

They don't agree because it's a bullshit term.  Always has been.  It's just another label to split gaming into tribal lines.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1078373The "storyteller" system is not, at heart, a story-game, and even Mike Mearls was saying the point of D&D is "creating stories" or something. GURPS, the ultimate "simulationist" game, has reality-altering mechanics.

Again, all elements that proves that Pundit's list of 'story games' is nothing more than BS.  There are some games he hates with a passion and thus labels them 'Story Games' which allows him to have some legitimacy in his hate when his fans agree and start using the term.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1078373I don't know Amber Diceless Roleplaying enough to weight in on the subject. However, the mere fact that the game says you ahve to create story does not make it a story game. Having mechanics that ler you alter reality without reference to your PC's action would indicate that it is. Amber probably makes the distinction even more complex because your characters, IIRC, can alter reality by definition...

There are no 'mechanics' beyond 'Mother May I'.  It's all up to the DM to adjudicate the results.  There are no randomizing agent, it's the player hoping that the GM is not having a bad day and taking it out on their character.

Or, if they have enough bad stuff, hoping he does take it out on their character!

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078419Or, if they have enough bad stuff, hoping he does take it out on their character!

Fair point.

I've yet to hear a satisfying definition of "storygame". The best rpg story I've read came out of an ACKs let's play thread on the big purple site(before ACKs was scrubbed from all written records and thought). The system's sandbox nature and harsh adherence to the cold hard nature of the die roll ended up creating a very epic story that followed a band of heroes, few of which survived, up to owning and running kingdoms and starting dynasties.

If anything I think it's the middle rpgs that are the divergence. Pre-planned railroad adventures where player action is basically pre-scripted along a single path with a predictable outcome and no real development or consequences to our heroes. Both OSR/story rpgs seem to break out of that and allow for real world building and character development.

Quote from: Dracones;1078620If anything I think it's the middle rpgs that are the divergence. Pre-planned railroad adventures where player action is basically pre-scripted along a single path with a predictable outcome and no real development or consequences to our heroes. Both OSR/story rpgs seem to break out of that and allow for real world building and character development.

I partly agree. Pre-planned railroad adventures - at least in publication - were first popularized with Dragonlance in the 1980s, and became dominant in the 1990s particularly with action/adventure RPGs like Shadowrun, Torg, and Deadlands. These were scenario books that literally are broken up into acts and scenes.

However, there have been a lot of traditional RPGs that run counter to this - in publication and/or play, not just OSR. I think the whole 3rd ed/D20 boom was in part a reaction against those scripted adventures, returning to location-based scenarios - and 3rd ed/D20 is not considered OSR.

Quote from: Dracones;1078620I've yet to hear a satisfying definition of "storygame". The best rpg story I've read came out of an ACKs let's play thread on the big purple site(before ACKs was scrubbed from all written records and thought). The system's sandbox nature and harsh adherence to the cold hard nature of the die roll ended up creating a very epic story that followed a band of heroes, few of which survived, up to owning and running kingdoms and starting dynasties.

If anything I think it's the middle rpgs that are the divergence. Pre-planned railroad adventures where player action is basically pre-scripted along a single path with a predictable outcome and no real development or consequences to our heroes. Both OSR/story rpgs seem to break out of that and allow for real world building and character development.

Quote from: jhkim;1078637I partly agree. Pre-planned railroad adventures - at least in publication - were first popularized with Dragonlance in the 1980s, and became dominant in the 1990s particularly with action/adventure RPGs like Shadowrun, Torg, and Deadlands. These were scenario books that literally are broken up into acts and scenes.

However, there have been a lot of traditional RPGs that run counter to this - in publication and/or play, not just OSR. I think the whole 3rd ed/D20 boom was in part a reaction against those scripted adventures, returning to location-based scenarios - and 3rd ed/D20 is not considered OSR.

And, most notably, CoC, which had whole campaigns out before Dragonlance. Also there was Cyberpunk 2020, Das Schwarze Auge/The Dark Eye, Paranoia, Dark Conspiracy, Marvel Super Heroes, WFRP, etc. Some of my favorite games. I think this is yet another case where I have to speak up against what seems to be conventional wisdom.

• Many published adventures have branches.
• Pre-planned doesn't equal railroad. It's only railroaded if the GM won't allow going off-script. The same applies to sandboxes if you can't leave them prematurely.
• And because pre-planned doesn't equal pre-scripted either, there is no necessary outcome but there can be development and consequences. Example: Playing the Shadowrun NAN1 scenario, my players failed to stop the toxic rat shaman and the rat shaman of the group as a consequence lost his power.
• The actual difference between pre-planned and sandbox is one of depth versus breadth.
• The actual difference between pre-planned and location-based is prepping for the most likely turn of events and focussing more depth there.

To my mind, the player experiences a traditional RPG in first person and a storygame in third person.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078655And, most notably, CoC, which had whole campaigns out before Dragonlance. Also there was Cyberpunk 2020, Das Schwarze Auge/The Dark Eye, Paranoia, Dark Conspiracy, Marvel Super Heroes, WFRP, etc. Some of my favorite games. I think this is yet another case where I have to speak up against what seems to be conventional wisdom.

• Many published adventures have branches.
• Pre-planned doesn't equal railroad. It's only railroaded if the GM won't allow going off-script. The same applies to sandboxes if you can't leave them prematurely.
• And because pre-planned doesn't equal pre-scripted either, there is no necessary outcome but there can be development and consequences. Example: Playing the Shadowrun NAN1 scenario, my players failed to stop the toxic rat shaman and the rat shaman of the group as a consequence lost his power.
• The actual difference between pre-planned and sandbox is one of depth versus breadth.
• The actual difference between pre-planned and location-based is prepping for the most likely turn of events and focussing more depth there.

You're muddling the issue here. If a published adventure has branches, then it isn't a linear railroad. Likewise, if it has multiple locations which can be taken in different order, it isn't a linear railroad. However, an adventure which is laid out as a series of scenes in order is pretty definitionally a railroad. What was surprising to me was just how many modules in the 1990s were literally a list of scenes in fixed order.

I'll buy that there are trade-offs between having branches versus having locations versus having random events. But a linear list of scenes in order pretty directly leads to railroading.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;1078659To my mind, the player experiences a traditional RPG in first person and a storygame in third person.

Interesting. I am requesting an example of third person in this case.

By first person, you mean how in D&D you take on a single character and you are that character for the game's purposes, and whatever happens to that character is what you care about? Or something more/less?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078665Interesting. I am requesting an example of third person in this case.

By first person, you mean how in D&D you take on a single character and you are that character for the game's purposes, and whatever happens to that character is what you care about? Or something more/less?

That's somewhat correct. What I mean when I say "first person" is immersive roleplaying -- seeing the world through the senses of your character.

A "third person" game is one in which you're telling the story of what happens to your character. Rolls in such games are less about success/failure and more about "narrative control". You're seeing your character from the "outside".

So, in a first person game, you might roll to have your PC kick open a door, and if you succeed, the GM would tell you what's waiting on the other side.

In a third person game, you might roll to see whether you or the GM get to describe the results of your PC's attempt to kick open the door, up to and including what's waiting on the other side.