TheRPGSite

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.

On the definitely story games side are GMless and rotating GM games like Polaris, The Quiet Year, Microscope, Fiasco, and A Thousand and One Nights.

Games out of The Forge are very likely to be considered such as well - like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard. Hillfolk is likely to be lumped in with these.

Then there are various GMed games which may or may not be considered story games, depending on who you talk to - Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, FATE, Apocalypse World (and derivatives), Cortex Plus (Smallville, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying).

In general, the story games community tends to be very broad in what is called a story game - but others are typically more narrow.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077322It 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.

Anything Pundit doesn't like.  That's it.  Don't believe anything else.  The list isn't consistent or even makes sense.

Well, the term story game seems kinda synonymous with what Ron Edwards called games supporting specifically narrativist play. However, the years went by and from my observation his GNS definition does not hold anymore. FATE is being called a narrative game by many, FFG calls its custom dice "narrative dice". We have the significant success of PbtA as a game engine. Revising all these things which gamers refer to as a narrative game or mechanic, I come to a different definition:


A narrative game or narrativist game or story game is an RPG in which the players control significantly more than their PC's intent.


Points of contention:

• As the thread regarding player consent has demonstrated, there seems to be some controversy over what "control" means. (For the record: my position is that as long as the GM has veto power over anything beyond PC intent, the players aren't in control of anything but that. Deniable requests don't count as control.)
• Also, there is bound to be controversy over what is significant. Edge of the Empire is, overall, no story game. Fate is debatable. Fiasco is most certainly one. (And I'd also put PbtA into that category.) Yet EotE has narrativist mechanics (see below).
• I suppose that some will refuse to consider them an RPG at all. But that's a fallacy in my humble opinion: just because they're outliers, doesn't mean they're no RPGs. The same as John Wick is wrong in claiming that D&D is not an RPG (http://johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/). A very gamist (such as early D&D) or very narrativist or very simulationist RPG is still an RPG. It's just an outlier.
  

Narrative mechanics are those mechanics in a RPG that hand players the power over more than their character's intent. You could say that they gain limited control over story that way - to the degree that the mechanic gives them agency.
Examples for narrative mechanics, stuff that goes beyond PC intent:

• Tagging a scene aspect in FATE: if you don't tag it, it has no mechanical effect. By tagging it, the player makes it come into play; it becomes part of the story.
• Triumph in Edge of the Empire: when you roll Triumph on an attack roll, you have several options to choose form, including stuff like ignoring environmental effects for a turn.
• Moves in PbtA: when you roll a Partial Success as a player, you often get choose in which regard you're successful.

Universalis 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?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077334Well, the term story game seems kinda synonymous with what Ron Edwards called games supporting specifically narrativist play. ]

Sort of. Story Games are what Edwards calls "Story Now" games - the purpose of the game is to mutually craft a dramatically satisfying story in play. Edwards 'Narrativism' is story with 'Dramatic Premise' - some kind of high-concept question like "How far would you go to save the ones you love?" - and Edwards seems to think these are the only kind of stories worth crafting, otherwise you just get pastiche.  

White Wolf games are Storyteller games - the GM has a Story, and he is Damn Well Going To Tell It. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1077338White Wolf games are Storyteller games - the GM has a Story, and he is Damn Well Going To Tell It. :D

Considering how much prose they crammed into the books, especially Aberrant, is it any surprise? :rolleyes:
(Since had the book on hand, pulled out Aberrant and did a check. 90+ pages out of 290+ pages. Nearly a third of the book was prose. Alot of that not even setting info. Just various stories and snippets. Most of it at least did set the tone. But still...)

Quote from: jhkim;1077329On the definitely story games side are GMless and rotating GM games like Polaris,

I was confused by this at first. I own the 2-book slipcase for Polaris--the one with a post-apocalyptic sci-fantasy in an undersea setting and very traditional rules--and I was thinking WTF is he talking about. Is there another Polaris? A quick check on DriveThru shows the one I'm talking about, but I don't dig too deep.

"Storygame" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  Depending on the speaker, it may be an attempt to non-judgmentally describe a set of games with certain shared characteristics, or it may be an epithet which means little more than "a game I dislike".

My personal definition is that a storygame is a game whose primary purpose is to tell a story, particularly when participants are encouraged to choose their moves (actions, turns, whatever) on the basis of "what would make for a good (e.g., dramatically satisfying) story?" in preference to other possible priorities or motivations.

This is in contrast to a role-playing game, where the primary purpose is to play the role of one or more characters in an imagined environment, particularly when participants choose their moves based primarily on the basis of either "if I were my character in this situation, what would I do?" (first-person roleplaying) or "if my character were a real person in this situation, what would they do?" (third-person roleplaying).

If these seem like two different ways of describing the same thing, two examples come to mind of storygame mechanics which are completely out of place in an RPG:

1) Metagame reality-altering mechanics.  In a storygame, players may be empowered to declare the presence of a shotgun behind the bar if the group agrees that it would be good for the story for a shotgun to be there, or to declare that there's no shotgun if the group thinks that would make the better story.  In an RPG, either the shotgun is there or it isn't, regardless of any dramatic considerations.

2) Fate and some other storygames encourage players to "conspire against their characters" with the GM or other players in order to improve the story being told.  In the specific case of Fate, the compel mechanic frequently seems to be involved in these conspiracies as a way to mechanically reward the player for choosing to harm or disadvantage their character.  In an RPG, the player is expected to make decisions as their character would, which generally precludes deliberately choosing to harm or hinder themselves without an in-game reason.

Quote from: jhkim;1077329On the definitely story games side are GMless and rotating GM games like Polaris, The Quiet Year, Microscope, Fiasco, and A Thousand and One Nights.

Out of curiosity,  do you consider "GMless" to be an absolute indicator of a storygame, even when it's a practical matter rather than something baked into the system from the start?  In other words, since that question reads about as clear as mud, if someone were to play D&D (or some other "this is definitively an RPG, not a storygame" of your choice) using the Mythic GM Emulator instead of a human GM, would that cause it to become a storygame?

Storygames: Director stance predominance.
Fiasco, A Quiet Year, Polaris, My Life with Master, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Microscope, etc.

Narrativist RPGs: Author + Actor stances predominance.
Fate, Sorcerer, Apocalyse World (and derivatives like Dungeon World), Smallvile (and derivatives like Marvel Heroic), Burning Wheel (and derivatives like Mouse Guard), Lady Blackbird, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chuubo, Nobilis, Hillfolk, etc.

Traditional RPGs: Actor stance predominance.
Vampire, D&D/OSR, Runequest (and derivatives like Call of Cthulhu), Traveller, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.

Hybrid RPGs: Some mix of the above two.
The One Ring, Kult: Divinity Lost, Beyond the Wall, Mutant Year Zero (and derivatives like Tales from the Loop), FFG Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Blades in the Dark, Pendragon, etc.

(that's my personal take anyway ;) )

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Storygames: Fiasco, A Quiet Year, Polaris, My Life with Master, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Microscope, etc.

Narrativist RPGs: Fate, Sorcerer, Apocalyse World (and derivatives like Dungeon World), Cortex plus/prime (and derivatives like Smallvile), Burning Wheel (and derivatives like Mouse Guard), Lady Blackbird, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chuubo, Nobilis, Hillfolk, etc.

Traditional RPGs: Vampire, D&D, Runequest (and derivatives like Call of Cthulhu), Traveller, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.

Hybrid (Narrativist+Traditional) RPGs: The One Ring, Kult: Divinity Lost, Beyond the Wall, Mutant Year Zero (and derivatives like Tales from the Loop), FFG Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Blades in the Dark, Pendragon, etc.

(that's my personal classification anyway ;) )

That's not a bad division IMO. Coming from a long line of Traditional RPGs, I've found that I can tolerate what you call Hybrid RPGs (although some of the heavier Narrative mechanics can leave me cold) but I've never been able to get interested in any that you list as a Storygame or a Narrativist RPG.

Where can you put 'Amber Diceless' on that scale?

Godfather Punk, the most narrativist/emulative/non-trad thing Amber has is the initial "Atribute auction", but it goes out the way as soon the game starts. So I would say Traditional. But I could see one saying Hybrid too, depending on how much you value the "Atribute Auction" and it's impact on the whole experience.

Makes sense?

P.S: I just read Amber and never played, so take that with a grain of salt.

Quote from: nDervish;1077356My personal definition is that a storygame is a game whose primary purpose is to tell a story, particularly when participants are encouraged to choose their moves (actions, turns, whatever) on the basis of "what would make for a good (e.g., dramatically satisfying) story?" in preference to other possible priorities or motivations.

This is in contrast to a role-playing game, where the primary purpose is to play the role of one or more characters in an imagined environment, particularly when participants choose their moves based primarily on the basis of either "if I were my character in this situation, what would I do?" (first-person roleplaying) or "if my character were a real person in this situation, what would they do?" (third-person roleplaying).

Here's why I don't think that works: people have been playing CoC as leading their little lambs to the slaughter for a long time. And their playstyle was a mix between the two. And I have in many different situations and many different games witnessed role-players to do the suboptimal or even the outlandish just because it seemed fun at the moment - fun story. Isolated events within what you call a RPG - but still serves to underline the following: people can play in a manner you call storygame with about any ruleset. (Is gonzo play a storygame or an RPG?) So maybe it could be used to classify playstyles but I don't know if it's helpful for classifying rulesets.

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Storygames: Director stance predominance.
Fiasco, A Quiet Year, Polaris, My Life with Master, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Microscope, etc.

I am only familiar with Fiasco. Question: do all of the others have mechanics that give the players agency over more than their character's intent? Because any agency over more than that gives limited (additional) control over story.

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Narrativist RPGs: Author + Actor stances predominance.
Fate, Sorcerer, Apocalyse World (and derivatives like Dungeon World), Smallvile (and derivatives like Marvel Heroic), Burning Wheel (and derivatives like Mouse Guard), Lady Blackbird, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chuubo, Nobilis, Hillfolk, etc.

Note that Author Stance implies game rules that give the players agency over more than character intent.

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Hybrid RPGs: Some mix of the above two.
The One Ring, Kult: Divinity Lost, Beyond the Wall, Mutant Year Zero (and derivatives like Tales from the Loop), FFG Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Blades in the Dark, Pendragon, etc.

My knee-jerk reaction was to point out that Hybrids between Narrativist and Traditional would be Narrativist - because the hybrid would by definition include some from of Author stance and Actor stance. But then I remembered that I demanded in my own definition that the narrative mechanics must be significant enough to classify the game overall as Narrativist. That is not the case in games like FFG SW, for example. Personally I would have classified it as Trad - but if you suggest using the label Trad as "pure" (no narrative mechanics whatsoever), then I am fine with that as well. You'd need a label specifically for Trad games with traces of narrativism, like FFG SW, though.

Quote from: jhkim;1077329Games out of The Forge are very likely to be considered such as well - like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard. Hillfolk is likely to be lumped in with these.

.

I've played a bit of Hillfolk. I imagine it would probably fall in or pretty close to Story Game here, unless the criteria have changed. But it is an unusual game. It is ultimately up to the mods and Pundit, but I can't really say how they would react to this one based on my own experience with it. It does have a GM as far I know (I was a player so I didn't read the rulebook). And the players can assert setting details through dialogue in scenes (and there are tokens you can spend as well I believe, which you get when you allow another person to achieve their goal in a scene). However, I thought it was one of the most immersionist experiences I had, and much different from my experience with games like Fiasco or ones where you tend not to speak as much in character. There are metaelements for sure, and there is a whole phase where you are basically just building all the relationships. But once you are in those scenes, it feels to me exactly like those moments in classic RPGs where everything just became about the roleplaying for half an hour to an hour (though I should say you can linger on scenes or move them along as much or as little as you want). I've dabbled in many of these kinds of games, but Hillfolk really struck a chord with me in ways the other ones didn't (and again I think it had something to do with the level of immersion). Contrast that with Dogs in the Vineyard where you have the whole bid system. This felt very different from that kind of system (though again, I was just a player, I could have been missing key details about the game).

Alexander Kalinowski, I think we agree then? Yes, the other Storygames listed allow players to control the story or world outside their characters (at least for those with player characters, some don't even have them). And the author stance games usually have "OOC" rules instances as you say, yes.

About the "hybrids", most of them have nar bits like collaborative world building, or OOC rules or some sort of story-control currencies, etc. but those are usually not as determinant to the game experience as the more narrativist RPGs make them. Pendragon Is a good example I think: it has lots of narrativist bits and pieces (virtue traits, passions, the glory loop) but the importance of those in the gameplay will depend on the group preference. It's not enforced like your usual narrativist game.

Makes sense?

Quote from: Itachi;1077367Godfather Punk, the most narrativist/emulative/non-trad thing Amber has is the initial "Atribute auction", but it goes out the way as soon the game starts. So I would say Traditional. But I could see one saying Hybrid too, depending on how much you value the "Atribute Auction" and it's impact on the whole experience.

Makes sense?

P.S: I just read Amber and never played, so take that with a grain of salt.

Maybe? I also only started to read the game 20 years ago, and the lack of dice and hard rules (as I remember) and players getting to create or populate the world, made me think it was SG.

I'll have to dig it up one of these days and give it another go.

..and it looks like I broke the forum database :)

*Sigh* and I thought I broke the database. :D

Quote from: Itachi;1077373Makes sense?

Pretty much! Personally, I don't distinguish between storygames and narrative RPGs but I don't object to the delineation either and if that became commonly accepted, I'd adopt it.

Good 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. ;)

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Storygames: Director stance predominance.
Fiasco, A Quiet Year, Polaris, My Life with Master, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Microscope, etc.

Narrativist RPGs: Author + Actor stances predominance.
Fate, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World (and derivatives like Dungeon World), Smallville (and derivatives like Marvel Heroic), Burning Wheel (and derivatives like Mouse Guard), Lady Blackbird, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chuubo, Nobilis, Hillfolk, etc. (World of Dew for me)

Traditional RPGs: Actor stance predominance.
Vampire, D&D/OSR, Runequest (and derivatives like Call of Cthulhu), Traveller, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.

Hybrid RPGs: Some mix of the above two.
The One Ring, Kult: Divinity Lost, Beyond the Wall, Mutant Year Zero (and derivatives like Tales from the Loop), FFG Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Blades in the Dark, Pendragon, etc.

(that's my personal take anyway ;) )

I bolded the ones I've played. Your structure works for me, albeit I've never been a fan of any of these artificial boundaries. While I do acknowledge that they offer significantly different gaming experiences, and some of these have appealed more than others, it's usually a reflection of the genre and the people around the table, rather the core mechanics. Same with boardgames, all sorts of variety out there, but the environment is more important to me than what's written on the box.

As an aside, TwoBats just posted this short article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSCE0a69GS8&feature=em-uploademail) encouraging people to try out One Page RPGs. The guy is absolutely right, all the ones I am familiar with are awesome, really promoting roleplaying ahead of mechanics or pre-set world-building. He also refers to "Single System Jail Syndrome". Now he is mostly talking about (not) bringing your Vampire DMing brain to your D&D game, but I do think there are benefits in exposure to these other mechanical systems, there's all sorts of cool stuff that can be stolen and shoe-horned into your home game.

I thought the simple definition was if you as a player take care of:
a) your PC. Making the coherent decisions that a character would do in that world
b) the Story. You take care of the PC but also what can trouble him and what difficulties he must overcome during this story. You, as a Player, sometimes shoot your PC in the leg in order to move the story forward (by gaining some special points, or just because it's funny)

Like the difference between wargames and tabletop roleplaying, the difference is with story games is one of focus.

Wargames, where the focus is on the participants playing collaboratively or competitively to achieve some type of defined victory condition.
Tabletop roleplaying, where the focus is on the participants pretending to be a character in a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee.
Storygames, where the focus is on the participants are collaboratively creating a narrative using the mechanics of a game as a structure.

If the work in question doesn't have a human referee, doesn't focus on achieving a victory conditions, talks about narratives, characterization and other traditional plot elements. Then likely it is a story game.
If a work in question is full of defined procedure to be used in one or more scenarios with a defined end and meant to be played with the rules applied equally to all then likely it is a wargame.
If a work in question is about making a character, and talks about the things that character can do within a setting and relies on a human referee to determine the success, failure, and factors of a character
action then it is likely a tabletop roleplaying game.

Hybrids abound which confuses the issue. For example Dogs in the Vineyards focus on a narrow situation and talks a lot of about how characters and NPCs could act and the moral issues they may face and so on. It features collabrative setting building. But it is mostly uses the structure of a tabletop roleplaying game.

This is actually best illustrated by the different between Melee/Wizard and The Fantasy Trip along with Mechwarrior / Battletech. You can't use the mechanics for either to determine whether what being run is a wargame campaign or a tabletop roleplaying. You have to look at what the campaign focuses on.

Irregardless of the rules if a campaign focuses on the participants collaboratively creating a narrative by using the rules of a game. Then it is a storygame campaign.

And no having a referee doesn't make a campaign a collaborative effort. A tabletop roleplaying is a special positions that among other things has superior knowledge of the circumstances of the setting.  You can't collaborative on a narrative on a equal footing if one individual has superior knowledge of what going on. Hence the trend of story games to minimize or eliminate the role of the referee. It is simply not needed and detrimental to collaborative storytelling.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1077332Anything Pundit doesn't like.  That's it.  Don't believe anything else.  The list isn't consistent or even makes sense.

I actually hope that Pundit will chime in.  This isn't an anti Pundit thread.  I have always been a D&D / Pathfinder / OSR only fan.  I was almost unaware of everything else; except I was aware that Vampire was d10 based, and you were able to roll more d10s as you advanced.  I've recently grown fond of the Dungeon World 2d6 mechanic, via Drunkens n Dragons.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077370Here's why I don't think that works: people have been playing CoC as leading their little lambs to the slaughter for a long time. And their playstyle was a mix between the two. And I have in many different situations and many different games witnessed role-players to do the suboptimal or even the outlandish just because it seemed fun at the moment - fun story. Isolated events within what you call a RPG - but still serves to underline the following: people can play in a manner you call storygame with about any ruleset. (Is gonzo play a storygame or an RPG?) So maybe it could be used to classify playstyles but I don't know if it's helpful for classifying rulesets.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Yes, I agree that it's primarily a playstyle distinction and that many (most? all?) "traditional" RPGs can be played in a storygaming mode.  Some storygames can also be played as "pure" RPGs, although I doubt that they're a majority, since a lot of them have story-based mechanics embedded too deeply to easily avoid them.  And, in any of these "dual-style" games, it's generally possible for you to be playing them in one style while the person sitting beside you is, at the same moment, playing in the other style, or even playing it as a wargame (tip of the hat to estar for bringing that third style into the discussion).

But, even when a game is one which can be played in your choice of style, the rules usually lean in one direction or another, so I think it's fair to describe the game itself on that basis.  You can play Battletech as a storygame, but the rules are primarily focused on wargaming (the core Battletech rules) or roleplaying (MechWarrior), so I would describe those as a wargame and an RPG respectively.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077370I am only familiar with Fiasco. Question: do all of the others have mechanics that give the players agency over more than their character's intent? Because any agency over more than that gives limited (additional) control over story.

The only game on that list that I'm familiar with is Microscope, which is primarily a history-building game.  You have a timeline and go around the table with each player either creating Eras in the timeline, adding Events to an Era, or defining key Scenes within an Event.  When a player adds a Scene, they can choose to either narrate it or to allow the group to determine the outcome by roleplaying the Scene.  This is the only time that you play a character in a Microscope session and, even then, you have broad control over other elements and minor characters within the Scene - roleplaying a Scene is basically freeform with the only hard rule being that each player chooses one character as their "primary" character in that Scene (you can also play minor characters if you choose to) and that no other player can affect your primary character without your consent.

So Microscope is pretty much a pure storygame (at least as I use the term) with little or no (in-character) roleplaying content.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077459I actually hope that Pundit will chime in.  This isn't an anti Pundit thread.  I have always been a D&D / Pathfinder / OSR only fan.  I was almost unaware of everything else; except I was aware that Vampire was d10 based, and you were able to roll more d10s as you advanced.  I've recently grown fond of the Dungeon World 2d6 mechanic, via Drunkens n Dragons.

What part of my statement is anti-Pundit?  He loves his own games, claims to be this 'OSR' guru and promotes them and absolutely adores Amber.

The latter is the key part, Amber IS a 'storygame' based off his definition, but because he thinks the so-called game is the best thing in the world, it's not.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1077501What part of my statement is anti-Pundit?  He loves his own games, claims to be this 'OSR' guru and promotes them and absolutely adores Amber.

The latter is the key part, Amber IS a 'storygame' based off his definition, but because he thinks the so-called game is the best thing in the world, it's not.

Oh, I wasn't criticizing you.  I was just stating my motives.

I call then Storyteller games and Traditional games.

Traditional RPGs are like D&D. You have a GM/DM who is in full control and the players do things in the GMs world.

Storyteller games or modern RPGs focus on crafting the story, the GM isn't as much in full control, but that's not essential. What makes a Storyteller game is a player making decisions either about their characters or for their character purely to make a better story not just because they are immersed in their character. FATE is the big standout here and PbtA has similar things said about it.


RPGs can have elements of both. For example Savage Worlds is pretty traditional, but a GM could take the bennies/hindrance ideas and run it like a Storyteller system.

Quote from: Godfather Punk;1077366Where can you put 'Amber Diceless' on that scale?

On 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.)

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.)

Can 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.

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.

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 (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/old-school-ramblings-1-play-now-story.html).

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 (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/old-school-ramblings-1-play-now-story.html).

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.

Quote from: jhkim;1077329On the definitely story games side are GMless and rotating GM games like Polaris, The Quiet Year, Microscope, Fiasco, and A Thousand and One Nights.

Games out of The Forge are very likely to be considered such as well - like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard. Hillfolk is likely to be lumped in with these.

Then there are various GMed games which may or may not be considered story games, depending on who you talk to - Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, FATE, Apocalypse World (and derivatives), Cortex Plus (Smallville, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying).

In general, the story games community tends to be very broad in what is called a story game - but others are typically more narrow.

Rotating GMs is common in dnd, I dont think that has much to do with a game being a Story Game?

Ok.  I might have a better understanding of the animal now...

If the significance and integrity of the Die Roll is more important than the Story; you might be playing an RPG.

If the continuity of the Story is more important than the Die Roll; you are playing a Story Game.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;1078668That'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.

That's very helpful, thank you.

Quote from: Razor 007;1078675If the significance and integrity of the Die Roll is more important than the Story; you might be playing an RPG.

If the continuity of the Story is more important than the Die Roll; you are playing a Story Game.

Which I've seen both in D&D, Rules Cyclopedia.  Hell, by this definition the AD&D 1e game I started back in the mid-80s, where the two girl DM's were running an intrigue heavy game involving Drow was a Story Game.

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

Yeah, this is Edwards/Forge "actor stance" 1st person vs "author stance" 3rd person - being the character vs talking about the character.

"Storygames" are really "Story Making" games, and participants normally take an author-stance to the characters.

As you know but some don't, this has nothing to do with Storyteller games, where the GM tells players (who are in actor stance/1st person) a pre-written story. That is railroading and is associated most strongly with White Wolf, but applies to all the series-of-pre-written scenes adventures popular in the '90s.

Quote from: jhkim;1078663You'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.

I don't think I am doing that. If you would kindly reread what has been said above, there was a reference to preplanned railroaded adventures (are there any preplanned adventures who are NOT railroaded? seems muddy). And then this was tied to whole games, the middle school of RPGs, more simulationist games, if you will. And then you came in and mentioned three role-playing games as examples for this, one of which I can competently speak about: 90s Shadowrun. And using 90s Shadowrun's published scenarios as an example for the above is generally false. In fact, the whole existence of the Legwork section in SR scenarios contradicts a linear succession of scenes: in general, PCs visit some kind of contacts to get information, leading to non-pre-planned scenes, and the information acquired in these scenes generally leads to the unlocking of more locations - in SOME order.

And it is my impression that more complex games and games with pre-planned adventures, the 90s school, have been declining in popularity in part because the people who like these games do not do very much to defend them online. Derogatory things are being said about them by by both gamists (usually connected to D&D in some form or another) and storygamers, as a part of gaming politics about which is the best way to play (yes, politics in gaming is not just about SJWs versus the alt-right). I am not sure if either of these groups is any longer used to getting any kind of pushback.

Which is also why I asked in the GURPS thread which prominent figure in RPGs is left defending more complex games.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1077332Anything Pundit doesn't like.  That's it.  Don't believe anything else.  The list isn't consistent or even makes sense.

I'll pop in to agree with this.

Quote from: Razor 007;1078675Ok.  I might have a better understanding of the animal now...

If the significance and integrity of the Die Roll is more important than the Story; you might be playing an RPG.

If the continuity of the Story is more important than the Die Roll; you are playing a Story Game.

No. Do not take the local hive mind as gospel. "Role Playing Game"...you're playing a role...in a game....it's a Role Playing Game...

It's that simple. The rest is overly-wrought, Internet-speed "debate" collected to protect the local darlings from things they feel threaten their world.

Wait... is the idea that Story Games are NOT RPGs?

...that doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078739Wait... is the idea that Story Games are NOT RPGs?

...that doesn't make any sense.

Welcome to Pundit's World.  :)

Quote from: Razor 007;1078675Ok.  I might have a better understanding of the animal now...

If the significance and integrity of the Die Roll is more important than the Story; you might be playing an RPG.

If the continuity of the Story is more important than the Die Roll; you are playing a Story Game.

I think these can both by rpgs, but for the first Gameplay > Plot, and the second Plot > Gameplay. My firm preference is #GameplayFirst

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078750Welcome to Pundit's World.  :)

Yuuuuuup!

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078739Wait... is the idea that Story Games are NOT RPGs?

...that doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078750Welcome to Pundit's World.  :)

Story games are the games Pundit doesn't like :D

Quote from: Trond;1078994Story games are the games Pundit doesn't like :D

Pretty much then we are told by Pundit that is not true at all.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078739Wait... is the idea that Story Games are NOT RPGs?

...that doesn't make any sense.

For a more serious answer, I have found that many "sand-boxy" games, no matter which system, often take on some characteristics of "story games". For instance when I have played in such campaigns, the players sometimes suggest things that the GM will actually use to flesh out the world further. Of course, the "story games" tend to have an actual mechanic for this, but the overall difference is not as great as some might think. It's actually great if you as GM have no time (or are too lazy) to prepare for the game. As far as this "story game" style goes, I found Houses of the Blooded was great fun.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1078708No. Do not take the local hive mind as gospel. "Role Playing Game"...you're playing a role...in a game....it's a Role Playing Game...

It's that simple. The rest is overly-wrought, Internet-speed "debate" collected to protect the local darlings from things they feel threaten their world.

The most sane thing I've read in this thread.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078703I don't think I am doing that. If you would kindly reread what has been said above, there was a reference to preplanned railroaded adventures (are there any preplanned adventures who are NOT railroaded? seems muddy). And then this was tied to whole games, the middle school of RPGs, more simulationist games, if you will. And then you came in and mentioned three role-playing games as examples for this, one of which I can competently speak about: 90s Shadowrun. And using 90s Shadowrun's published scenarios as an example for the above is generally false. In fact, the whole existence of the Legwork section in SR scenarios contradicts a linear succession of scenes: in general, PCs visit some kind of contacts to get information, leading to non-pre-planned scenes, and the information acquired in these scenes generally leads to the unlocking of more locations - in SOME order.

And it is my impression that more complex games and games with pre-planned adventures, the 90s school, have been declining in popularity in part because the people who like these games do not do very much to defend them online. Derogatory things are being said about them by by both gamists (usually connected to D&D in some form or another) and storygamers, as a part of gaming politics about which is the best way to play (yes, politics in gaming is not just about SJWs versus the alt-right). I am not sure if either of these groups is any longer used to getting any kind of pushback.

I think Shadowrun is more forgivable in regard to railroads because, even if the actual plots seen in the modules were pretty linear, the actual environments where the meat of the action occurred (corp complexes, gang turf, govmt buildings etc) were akin to D&D dungeons, that is, open to a myriad approaches and resulting in emergent experiences.

The real offenders were things like Dragonlance and Vampire imo, which had modules completely linear or GM instructions of the kind "write your chronicle with twists and climaxes" and all that.

Railroads and story games are not the same thing. Not at all.

"The important thing to keep in mind for the folks that eschew "story" is that railroading is not the only path to story creation. The "modern" games I mentioned above are great example on how to encourage story "flow" without resorting to railroads (some would say that they are incompatible, as there is no story creation if the story is already written). I would even say that this methods are better than the ones originally used by Dragonlance, at least for my tastes. The downside is that the "climaxes", resolutions", etc, aren't guaranteed without previous planning, but clever mechanics may enhance the probability that they should happen at the right time."

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/old-school-ramblings-1-play-now-story.html

Aso, until I find a better definition... in role-playing games you're focused on playing a role, while in story games you're focused on creating a story. Easy.

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

That does seem a fairly common element too. But is dependent on the storygame and just how it is structuring things. Some put alot of emphasis on just GMing your own character and the environ during that. Others are more distant and each player has some control over the whole party/world/etc.

Then there are the oddballs, the oracle systems where you might control just your character again, or a group. But you do not necessarily know what is going to happen next. Is the door locked? You wont know till you ask. And you dont have to ask where something is obvious. (Though you can to get thrown a possible curveball.) Very dependent on just how much control the player/s want and how much they want left unknown.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078739Wait... is the idea that Story Games are NOT RPGs?

...that doesn't make any sense.

Some of the hard Story storygames have very little, well, game in them. Universalis is my personal experience with such. The book spends alot of pages telling you how to tell a story and how to control your character/s and others via the bidding system. But a bidding system does not a game make. The two sessions I sat in on way back no one bid at all. It was lierally just a round robin storytelling session. No game. No role playing.

Quote from: Trond;1079086For a more serious answer, I have found that many "sand-boxy" games, no matter which system, often take on some characteristics of "story games". For instance when I have played in such campaigns, the players sometimes suggest things that the GM will actually use to flesh out the world further.

But in that all the player is doing is suggestion something. Not dictating something as in more than a few storygames. In fact that was the whole point of some storygames. To either relegate the DM to little more than a vend-bot. Or remove the DM totally. Power to the player. Free them from the horrible oppression of the hated DM! The way some talked youd think the DM raped their sister or something. For a while it was pretty nuts.

Quote from: Itachi;1079113The real offenders were things like Dragonlance and Vampire imo, which had modules completely linear or GM instructions of the kind "write your chronicle with twists and climaxes" and all that.

This keep getting trotted out. But I have the first few DL modules and they are near bog standard wander about and bungle into things waiting to happen. But with an added element of "world in motion". At X time this thing will happen unless the PCs have done something to prevent that. And in at least the early modules the players could actually crash the setting or have a TPK through action or inaction. That was true at least up to module 4. Whereas module 11 is really a board game playing out moments in the war of the Lance and the players are free to go about things however they please after the initial setups, or play their own encounters.

Quote from: Omega;1079131This keep getting trotted out. But I have the first few DL modules and they are near bog standard wander about and bungle into things waiting to happen. But with an added element of "world in motion". At X time this thing will happen unless the PCs have done something to prevent that. And in at least the early modules the players could actually crash the setting or have a TPK through action or inaction. That was true at least up to module 4. Whereas module 11 is really a board game playing out moments in the war of the Lance and the players are free to go about things however they please after the initial setups, or play their own encounters.

I guess Dragonlance is infamous for some railroading techniques - using GM force if the PCs go 'off track' - but is not the linear scene-by-scene railroad of many 1990s 'adventures'.

Quote from: S'mon;1079142but is not the linear scene-by-scene railroad of many 1990s 'adventures'.

And which are the linear scene-by-scene railroad 1990s 'adventures' other than White Wolf's? Call of Cthulhu's vaunted scenarios/campaigns? WFRP's The Enemy Within? Technically they were from the 80s but I fail to remember 90s 'adventures' differing too much from their formula. MERP's 'adventure' modules? Name names, guys, other than Vampire. I need specifics to be able to distinguish 'adventures' from 'real adventures.'

I suppose Paranoia's adventures were very heavily railroaded (sometimes literally so! :D ) but then again that was only thematic.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079164And which are the linear scene-by-scene railroad 1990s 'adventures' other than White Wolf's? Call of Cthulhu's vaunted scenarios/campaigns? WFRP's The Enemy Within? Technically they were from the 80s but I fail to remember 90s 'adventures' differing too much from their formula. MERP's 'adventure' modules? Name names, guys, other than Vampire. I need specifics to be able to distinguish 'adventures' from 'real adventures.'

I suppose Paranoia's adventures were very heavily railroaded (sometimes literally so! :D ) but then again that was only thematic.

A lot of the later 90s Ravenloft adventures felt a bit railroads (at least more so than the early 90s adventures). They were no all linear but they often had things the GM has to force, or many were structured in Acts. There was still good content in them, but I ran them again not too long ago and had to step around the railroad bits.

Quote from: Omega;1079121Some of the hard Story storygames have very little, well, game in them. Universalis is my personal experience with such. The book spends alot of pages telling you how to tell a story and how to control your character/s and others via the bidding system. But a bidding system does not a game make. The two sessions I sat in on way back no one bid at all. It was lierally just a round robin storytelling session. No game. No role playing.

...so by that definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game. The only thing it has is a bidding system, at character creation. (And I love me some Amber, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good definition.)

Quote from: Omega;1079123But in that all the player is doing is suggestion something. Not dictating something as in more than a few storygames. In fact that was the whole point of some storygames. To either relegate the DM to little more than a vend-bot. Or remove the DM totally. Power to the player. Free them from the horrible oppression of the hated DM! The way some talked youd think the DM raped their sister or something. For a while it was pretty nuts.

Trying to grasp a bit more: so is the problem shared power or how the shared power is represented? I've read some games that share much more power among the players, played a few, but I do not recall any being quite like this in how it presented itself. Is there a solid example I can look at?

Quote from: S'mon;1079142I guess Dragonlance is infamous for some railroading techniques - using GM force if the PCs go 'off track' - but is not the linear scene-by-scene railroad of many 1990s 'adventures'.

Theres actually not much of that either in at least the early modules. There are some elements that could bee seen as railroading by some of the more loony types out there. You know. The ones that proclaim that Keep on the Borderlands is railroading.

Some that popped out to me in DL2 for example was the an attack survivor who will kick the bucket no matter that the PCs do. This struck me as very wrong. If the PCs do all they can to save this fellow then barring some external threat he should live with alot of bedrest.
But...
The PCs can actually totally miss this encounter by merely passing through the area quietly and inadvertently not attracting the poor fellows attention. Though if I recall correctly the encounter happens with the first ruined town the PCs cross so it is one of those iffy cases some of us dislike using as a DM. The mobile encounter.

On the other hand on the same page there is an encounter where the PCs are captured if they dither too long. Except that the encounter can end with a TPK or the PCs somehow winning. Or the PCs could totally avoid the event by their choice of route.

There is alot of that in the module. Something will happen if the PCs do X. But the outcome of that encounter is up in the air. There is at times a bit too much reliance on stacking the odds against the PCs to get a probable desired outcome. But in several cases it at least makes sense and again the outcome is totally up to the players about every time.

Another one that rubbed me the wrong way was another early set encounter in 3 or 4 with the party getting ambushed at sea by a dragon. This is either the same dragon they faced last module, or a new one if they killed the other. Makes sense when you think about it. But the presentation was a little heavy handed with no explanation. Just theres a dragon no matter what the PCs did. But what bugged me is that the PCs boat is going to get either wrecked or at least foundered no matter what they do. This is another one where as a DM I would have the PCs make stat checks and whatever to beach intact rather than it being inevitable.

And that is mostly it. Little things that for whatever the hell reason seem to get blown out of proportion. At this point I am starting to suspect that most are just parroting what someone else said without ever bothering to look. Either that or they are one of those "everything is railroading!!!" loons.

But overall the early DL modules at least are not much different from other normal modules like the Giants series for example.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1079167A lot of the later 90s Ravenloft adventures felt a bit railroads (at least more so than the early 90s adventures). They were no all linear but they often had things the GM has to force, or many were structured in Acts. There was still good content in them, but I ran them again not too long ago and had to step around the railroad bits.

I thin that may have been a problem of people coming after, looking at say Dragonlance, and seeing only these set encounters and totally missing the point that those set encounters could be avoided or that the outcomes were usually totally up to the PCs actions to win fail or die.

Its like someone seeing a pretty painting and all they can think of when making their own is that you need expensive paints and brushes.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079169...so by that definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game. The only thing it has is a bidding system, at character creation. (And I love me some Amber, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good definition.)

I dont know? I have never seen Amber played. Though one of my players has it. I thought there was more to the game than just bidding at chargen?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079171Trying to grasp a bit more: so is the problem shared power or how the shared power is represented? I've read some games that share much more power among the players, played a few, but I do not recall any being quite like this in how it presented itself. Is there a solid example I can look at?

I would not say it is a problem of power share per-se so much as it is a problem of treating the DM as an adversary that must be defeated, restrained, contained, or eliminated. As was noted by others earlier in the thread normal gaming sessions can have the DM playing off the things the PCs do or the players say, suggest, or guess. Using the players as a springboard of ideas.

On the PCs finding a skeleton with an arrow in its ribs one player might wonder if elves did this? And the DM might think that is a neat idea and secretly run with it. Or a player or the group might ask the DM to run something where they fight mindflayers. And the DM obliges.

The more extreme end of the Storygamer lot though wanted to dictate to the DM what happens. No asking. There ARE mindflayers and thats that.

And theres a wide variance of storygamer too. Some are pretty mild. All they really ask for and want is the DM to run with a sort of plot to it. Though in this case "plot" may be "The stuff we did" rather than anything specifically planned out. Or "plot" might be to them just the overarching plot of an adventure. "There are hobgoblins and orcs building a fort in the swamp" And some want plot heavy sessions. Grove's players and his particular playstyle for example.

Quote from: Omega;1079179I dont know? I have never seen Amber played. Though one of my players has it. I thought there was more to the game than just bidding at chargen?

Mechanically? ...not much. The rest is basically, "do you have this power? OK; how do you want to try to use it to solve this situation?" and the GM narrates success or failure. It's much more socially driven than it is mechanically. You compare Player 1's stats to Player 2's when you're in conflict (which those stats and ranks between them were determined in the bidding war). In theory, person with higher number wins. In reality, the HOW matters much more than the number. And the how can be affected by luck ("Good Stuff" or "Bad Stuff") and what powers someone has, and how they use them.

But you can't pin a number to those things. (That is, "I have Pattern, so that gives me +X to my Warfare skill, putting it above yours!" Does not work like that.)

Quote from: Omega;1079180The more extreme end of the Storygamer lot though wanted to dictate to the DM what happens. No asking. There ARE mindflayers and thats that.

This sentence, probably my ignorance, but I have never actually seen a game run like that. I can't think of one that has that sort of a setup in its rules. Well, except for one anime-inspired where there was literally a way to usurp the GM and make the GM become another player, but it was incredibly tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't adversarial.

I'm not an Amberite, but IIRC from reading it, the players don't NEED to stop role playing their character and be presented with choices that their character could not make.  

Sure, with no dice rolling, and the GM simply using stat comparisons and fiat to resolve close contests I can certainly see players moving to OOC discussing of other traits and factors that might lean in their favor.  I don't see it mandated though, like the 2d20 choice whether to buy more dice while knowing that gives the GM his "GM Fuel" currency to spend, or Fate where deciding to spend a point to invoke an aspect determines whether your Schrodinger's whatever is going to take effect.

The biggest problem with Amber is that the characters are basically reality-altering Gods who can simply affect things on a level few other games can do.  With any other game, those would be OOC abilities requiring Authorial Stance.  With Amber, it's just roleplaying the character.  They don't need to spend a dramatic point to pop in a shotgun behind the bar, they can just make one.

It's such a different form of game due to the diceless nature and the power level of the characters that Amber really defies definition.

I can totally see some tables going full storyteller and use Amber for a collaborative story.
I can also totally see some tables staying in character the whole time because no rules in the game prevent it.

I think Erick Wujick designed it that way on purpose, which is part of the brilliance of the design I can appreciate, even if it's not my thing.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079183This sentence, probably my ignorance, but I have never actually seen a game run like that. I can't think of one that has that sort of a setup in its rules. Well, except for one anime-inspired where there was literally a way to usurp the GM and make the GM become another player, but it was incredibly tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't adversarial.

Theres some older threads here and elsewhere where it came up a few years ago. As noted. For a time there was a big push to push storygaming over traditional RPGs or co-opt them. Pundit's "Swine" were a real thing. Though seems to have died out mostly, or at least mellowed out. Ever so often someone will trot out one of the storygamer buzzwords like "the fiction". But thats fallen into disuse too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1079185I'm not an Amberite, but IIRC from reading it, the players don't NEED to stop role playing their character and be presented with choices that their character could not make.  

Sure, with no dice rolling, and the GM simply using stat comparisons and fiat to resolve close contests I can certainly see players moving to OOC discussing of other traits and factors that might lean in their favor.

So there is still a system in there. Such as simple stat comparison, which some other RPGs use? Like character A has a stat of 12 and B has a stat of 13. So B wins just barely?

Quote from: Omega;1079187So there is still a system in there. Such as simple stat comparison, which some other RPGs use? Like character A has a stat of 12 and B has a stat of 13. So B wins just barely?

Yes... but no, not really. In theory, 13 wins over 12 in a straight fight. So 12 is doing what he can to make sure the fight isn't straight. But if you're looking for a systemic way that's expressed, there isn't one.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079189Yes... but no, not really. In theory, 13 wins over 12 in a straight fight. So 12 is doing what he can to make sure the fight isn't straight. But if you're looking for a systemic way that's expressed, there isn't one.

I think I can guess where that is going. Pretty darn sure I've seen that sort of on the fly system for an older RPG but cant recall the name.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1079185I'm not an Amberite, but IIRC from reading it, the players don't NEED to stop role playing their character and be presented with choices that their character could not make.  

Concur mostly with what you said, and that I think Erick probably designed it like that as well. Especially concur with the authorial stance bit.

QuoteSure, with no dice rolling, and the GM simply using stat comparisons and fiat to resolve close contests I can certainly see players moving to OOC discussing of other traits and factors that might lean in their favor.  I don't see it mandated though, like the 2d20 choice whether to buy more dice while knowing that gives the GM his "GM Fuel" currency to spend, or Fate where deciding to spend a point to invoke an aspect determines whether your Schrodinger's whatever is going to take effect.

Moving to an OOC discussion about other traits and factors is pretty common at some tables. If my Psyche is higher than your Psyche, but my Warfare is lower than yours, I'm going to make damn sure I get the fight into a Psyche battle, even if we started in a Warfare battle. At other tables, I've seen it as a more cloak-and-dagger not expressing that I'm trying to shift the battle to Psyche, but with a nudge-nudge to the GM that that's the direction I'm  moving in.

So it's a bit subtler than buying a move, but it's still, basically, "buying a move," just expressed more indirectly through shadow and guile. Your currency is wits.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079164And which are the linear scene-by-scene railroad 1990s 'adventures' other than White Wolf's? Call of Cthulhu's vaunted scenarios/campaigns?

The worst one I ever bought was 'Rogue Mistress' for Chaosium's Stormbringer.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1079167A lot of the later 90s Ravenloft adventures felt a bit railroads (at least more so than the early 90s adventures). They were no all linear but they often had things the GM has to force, or many were structured in Acts. There was still good content in them, but I ran them again not too long ago and had to step around the railroad bits.

Well, it sounds like a normal published, pre-planned scenario. Kinda like what FFG pushes for all its major RPG lines; it certainly did for their 40K lines - and there some very fine adventures among them.

Quote from: Omega;1079175But what bugged me is that the PCs boat is going to get either wrecked or at least foundered no matter what they do. This is another one where as a DM I would have the PCs make stat checks and whatever to beach intact rather than it being inevitable.

Yeah, that's the thing about railroady adventures: the GM can always allow the adventure to go off-the-rails, see above. Railroading is more a GM technique than scenario design technique. Most in-scenario railoads can be taken off the rails by the GM. And if there is an occasional hard-scripted event that the players cannot prevent from happening it's no big deal either. I find it healthy when the players realize that their powers are limited and that some things are destined to happen no matter what they do. If that's an exception, it works for me.

The major caveat that comes to mind is that when the sea dragon will sink the ship anyway, then there's no point in having the players fight it in the combat system: you might as well just narrate it, the dragon being the force of nature that it is.

Quote from: S'mon;1079197The worst one I ever bought was 'Rogue Mistress' for Chaosium's Stormbringer.

Let's hear it.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079169...so by that definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game. The only thing it has is a bidding system, at character creation. (And I love me some Amber, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good definition.)

Got it in one.  It's not.

Quote from: Itachi;1077358Storygames: Director stance predominance.
Fiasco, A Quiet Year, Polaris, My Life with Master, Shock: Social Science Fiction, Microscope, etc.

Narrativist RPGs: Author + Actor stances predominance.
Fate, Sorcerer, Apocalyse World (and derivatives like Dungeon World), Smallvile (and derivatives like Marvel Heroic), Burning Wheel (and derivatives like Mouse Guard), Lady Blackbird, Don't Rest Your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, Chuubo, Nobilis, Hillfolk, etc.

Traditional RPGs: Actor stance predominance.
Vampire, D&D/OSR, Runequest (and derivatives like Call of Cthulhu), Traveller, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.

Hybrid RPGs: Some mix of the above two.
The One Ring, Kult: Divinity Lost, Beyond the Wall, Mutant Year Zero (and derivatives like Tales from the Loop), FFG Star Wars, Tenra Bansho Zero, Blades in the Dark, Pendragon, etc.

(that's my personal take anyway ;) )

I agree 100%. It's all about stance.

Quote from: amacris;1079285I agree 100%. It's all about stance.

What's the difference between Director Stance and Author Stance?

Quote from: S'mon;1079304What's the difference between Director Stance and Author Stance?

Director Stance involves what I have described above as narrative mechanism: mechanisms that give players control over more than PC intent. All the others focus on character intent/actions.

Author stance is not doing what you think would be plausible for the character (that is Actor stance, getting in character) but doing whatever you want out of meta concerns and then retroactively justifying it with in-setting reasons. The latter part is important, without it it would be Pawn Stance.

Complementing Alexander post:

- Actor stance: What's best for me as the character? "I'm cornered and badly hurt, so my best bet is retreat, or I'll risk dying here."

- Author: What's best for my character from the POV of genre cliches or just coolness? "I'm cornered and badly hurt, so my best bet is retreating. BUT what usually happens in movies of this genre is heroes refusing to give up against all odds, giving a bravado speech and going in with flair against all odds. So Im doing that."

- Director: What's best for the story as a whole? "I'm cornered and badly hurt. It would be really cool if at this right moment it started to rain so we made this scene of my char all soaked and bleeding giving his last speech on the mud, while the enemies surround him slowly, and slowly until the scene blacks out and only his scream is heard.

"That was beautiful John! I'm adding to the scene: Your younger brother actually saw all that hiding from a bush nearby and now he wants revenge on your killers."

Quote from: Itachi;1079332Complementing Alexander post:

- Actor stance: What's best for me as the character? "I'm cornered and badly hurt, so my best bet is retreat, or I'll risk dying here."

- Author: What's best for my character from the POV of genre cliches or just coolness? "I'm cornered and badly hurt, so my best bet is retreating. BUT what usually happens in movies of this genre is heroes refusing to give up against all odds, giving a bravado speech and going in with flair against all odds. So Im doing that."

- Director: What's best for the story as a whole? "I'm cornered and badly hurt. It would be really cool if at this right moment it started to rain so we made this scene of my char all soaked and bleeding giving his last speech on the mud, while the enemies surround him slowly, and slowly until the scene blacks out and only his scream is heard.

"That was beautiful John! I'm adding to the scene: Your younger brother actually saw all that hiding from a bush nearby and now he wants revenge on your killers."

What I think of actor stance is "from POV of PC" and what I think of as author stance is "from POV of third party". Personally I could be in actor stance, fully immersed, and refusing to give up against all odds, giving a bravado speech and going in with flair against all odds - if that's what my character would do.

S'mon , that's also fine by me, if "going in against all odds" was something you or your character would naturally do.

Bankuei has a nice 'n quick explanation  here (https://www.google.com/amp/s/bankuei.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/stances-101/amp/)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079265Got it in one.  It's not.

I'd agree that it's not a game of chance, but I'd say there's still a game in there. There's still let's-pretend in it. So it depends on the definition of game.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079346I'd agree that it's not a game of chance, but I'd say there's still a game in there. There's still let's-pretend in it. So it depends on the definition of game.

It's a form of 'Mother May I' so if you say that's a game, then I guess it is.

Quote from: Itachi;1079332Complementing Alexander post:

- Actor stance: What's best for me as the character? "I'm cornered and badly hurt, so my best bet is retreat, or I'll risk dying here."

- Author: What's best for my character from the POV of genre cliches or just coolness? "I'm cornered and badly hurt, so my best bet is retreating. BUT what usually happens in movies of this genre is heroes refusing to give up against all odds, giving a bravado speech and going in with flair against all odds. So Im doing that."

- Director: What's best for the story as a whole? "I'm cornered and badly hurt. It would be really cool if at this right moment it started to rain so we made this scene of my char all soaked and bleeding giving his last speech on the mud, while the enemies surround him slowly, and slowly until the scene blacks out and only his scream is heard.

"That was beautiful John! I'm adding to the scene: Your younger brother actually saw all that hiding from a bush nearby and now he wants revenge on your killers."

That Director Stance example makes me...... Uneasy.

Quote from: Razor 007;1079376That Director Stance example makes me...... Uneasy.

:D :D :D

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1078708No. Do not take the local hive mind as gospel. "Role Playing Game"...you're playing a role...in a game....it's a Role Playing Game...

It's that simple. The rest is overly-wrought, Internet-speed "debate" collected to protect the local darlings from things they feel threaten their world.

I'd respectfully disagree. There's a point at which one activity is so different from another that it becomes a different activity. It's about clarity of language.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;1079442I'd respectfully disagree. There's a point at which one activity is so different from another that it becomes a different activity. It's about clarity of language.

Exactly. Its like where some nuts want to broaden the definition of something to the point it is practically "everything on earth" or IS "Everything on Earth.". What is role playing? Watching grass grow! Pretty clouds! Reading a book! "What is an RPG? What is role playing? Watching grass grow! Pretty clouds! Reading a book!

ad nausium. And I've actually seen people claim these things.

At that point the definition or any sane sort of conversation with that person becomes meaningless.

If "playing a role in a game" is a RPG, then LARPS, video games and many boardgames are now RPGs.

But they're not. Each is its own thing. Not "better or worse", but simply their own thing.

That's why we can break down games into Narrative Story Games vs. Traditional Roleplaying Games. And everyone is 1000% welcome to chitchat about every Narrative Story Game in the Other Games forum.

Amazing how some people want the definitions around RPGing to be confused, but the LARP community is really clear what its about. Same with video game and board game communities.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;1079442I'd respectfully disagree. There's a point at which one activity is so different from another that it becomes a different activity. It's about clarity of language.

Funny that "clarity of language" is used as a defense yet is the very tactic SJWs use: changing the narrative and division. I play Blades in the Dark, FFG Star Wars, Invisible Sun, Numenera, Dusk City Outlaws and GeneSys, all of which are Role Playing Games. It's staggeringly stupid to say they are otherwise, yet, many do.

I made a blogpost a while back on the problem of defining common terminology in such theoretical discussions. The first part of that post applies here:
http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/2018/05/rpg-theory-with-rigor-part-2/ (http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/2018/05/rpg-theory-with-rigor-part-2/)

The tl;dnr is that such definitions of common terminology represent a clustering problem. We all know that D&D is an RPG (except John Wick, of course). But is Fiasco a RPG? It depends where you draw the line and we'll never be able to agree on where to draw the line. And there will always be fringe cases. So, it's pointless to go for that ONE definition that will kill all others. It's enough if we roughly understand what the other is saying and if necessary we can ask for clarification in fringe cases.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079446If "playing a role in a game" is a RPG, then LARPS, video games and many boardgames are now RPGs.

...so Live Action Role Playing Games (commonly abbreviated as LARP) isn't a Role Playing Game?

I mean... it's in the name. They're usually classed as a sub-type of RPGs, just like Tabletop RPGs are a sub-type of the super category of RPGs. As are video game RPGs. They're literally RPGs.

Was the use of RPG here just sloppy short hand for pen-and-paper RPGs, like the name of the forum?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079532...so Live Action Role Playing Games (commonly abbreviated as LARP) isn't a Role Playing Game?

I mean... it's in the name. They're usually classed as a sub-type of RPGs, just like Tabletop RPGs are a sub-type of the super category of RPGs. As are video game RPGs. They're literally RPGs.

Was the use of RPG here just sloppy short hand for pen-and-paper RPGs, like the name of the forum?

That's my take too. "RPG" is any game where you play a role in a fictional world or story, and this can take many forms: electronic, tabletop, live-action, CYOA, etc.

Quote from: Itachi;1079545That's my take too. "RPG" is any game where you play a role in a fictional world or story, and this can take many forms: electronic, tabletop, live-action, CYOA, etc.

And you've just expanded the term into "everything on earth" and made it a totally useless term.

Playing in a LARP is role playing. Acting in a movie is not. Reading a book, even a COYA is not.

I think a role-playing game is roughly what the wikipedia entry tells me it is. ;)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079606I think a role-playing game is roughly what the wikipedia entry tells me it is. ;)

Haha that's a good one! :D

Well, for the above stated reasons I prefer an extensional definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions#Extensional_definition).

Quote from: Omega;1079567And you've just expanded the term into "everything on earth" and made it a totally useless term.

Playing in a LARP is role playing. Acting in a movie is not. Reading a book, even a COYA is not.

So you could narrow it a bit by including "Game" in the requirement, as Itachi did. Acting on a movie set is probably not a game, depending on how you want to define that word. A COYA book is not a game, again, depending on the definition of the word. However, I would contend that Lone Wolf books would actually be games because of the random number chart (or a D10) and thus are a type of RPG. One even involving pen-and-paper, but not a Tabletop RPG probably.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079606I think a role-playing game is roughly what the wikipedia entry tells me it is. ;)

Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081216Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

I gave a carefully worded response yesterday to a query from a London Evening Standard journalist about this story (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/26/tory-mp-criticised-for-using-antisemitic-term-cultural-marxism). One thing I said was not to rely on Wikipedia definitions!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081216Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

Being aware of a potential agenda of people crafting definitions is always useful to have at the back of your head. However, if we want a rough definition of what a TTRPG is, this page seems to be sufficient for an extensive definition (though that's admittedly not a succinct way of defining it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games)

And whether Fiasco is a role-playing game or a storygame is largely irrelevant semantics to me. When clustering data points, you'll always have outliers and fringe cases about which there can be endless, pointless debates. What matters to me is that a term is well-enough understood at its core in most contexts. For fringe cases, you got to explicitly spell out each and every time whether you let that case fall under a given umbrella or not. And you can even let it sometimes fall under that umbrella while you don't in different contexts.

And that's it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081216Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

That's like saying that Wikipedia's definition of Addition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition) is flawed because the (edit: articles) on politics have a partisan slant.

It's a remarkably high level of paranoia over issues aren't really in dispute instead of the ones that are. And a very blatant ad hominem.

All games tell a story, some do this poorly.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081246That's like saying that Wikipedia's definition of Addition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition) is flawed because the (edit: articles) on politics have a partisan slant.

It's a remarkably high level of paranoia over issues aren't really in dispute instead of the ones that are. And a very blatant ad hominem.

Actually... A few years ago Storygamers did edit Wikipedia's entry on RPGs to meet their narrative of what an RPG is.

Quote from: Quadrante;1081248All games tell a story, some do this poorly.

False.

You can make up a story from anything. But that in no way means that thing told a story as it were.

I have a meteorite sitting on my desk. I can quite easily make up a story about said meteorite. The space rock did not tell a story. But it did inspire one. Same with playing chess, tic-tac-toe or anything else, even RPGs can be so to some.

Quote from: Omega;1081249Actually... A few years ago Storygamers did edit Wikipedia's entry on RPGs to meet their narrative of what an RPG is.

And, having never actually seen their narrative, what was wrong with it and why didn't it fit the definition of an RPG?

Quote from: Omega;1081250You can make up a story from anything. But that in no way means that thing told a story as it were.

Everything tells a story. The question is whether or not you are listening.

QuoteI have a meteorite sitting on my desk.

Neat!

QuoteI can quite easily make up a story about said meteorite. The space rock did not tell a story.

The space rock also tells a story to certain fields. There may be some guess work and some reconstruction, but parts of that story can be reasonably inferred to not be made up by the person but are beyond a reasonable doubt the rock's "own words" because to believe otherwise would be to doubt what is verifiable.

QuoteSame with playing chess, tic-tac-toe or anything else, even RPGs can be so to some.

Chess tells a story of strategy and wit. Tic-tac-toe tells a similar story, and a story of number theory.

A different take ... (I think, I scanned the 14 pages)

There's some line between game and story. The milestone (and, I would argue, pure killing=xp) games seem to be in Story mode. But the players have very little control over themselves, unlike in a traditional Story game. The Gold for XP systems seem more like a game. I would almost say adversarial, between them and the DM ... except the DM is a neutral party. I can't really get ahold of the core concept I'm trying to reate, which is why I'm posting.

Hmmm, and maybe some relatioship to a killing=xp game as well, where you're playing against the game world, at least in a campaign where the DM isn't explicitly telling a story?

You need victory points and you work as a group to get them. Through gold=xp or  killing=xp. This stands in contract to modern Pathfinder/5e where you sit in a chair bored while the Giovanni-light unfolds around you. Boredom relieved, you level. Even a traditional story game gives you more control.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081287Chess tells a story of strategy and wit. Tic-tac-toe tells a similar story, and a story of number theory.

Only in the sense that it is an account of connected events.

Or do you think that chess players set out to create a narrative work?

That the fundamental question that needs to be answered, what is the intention of the group for this activity.

If it is to compete or cooperate using a rules of game to beat some victory conditions then it is a wargame.

If it is to pretend to be character interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee using the rules of a game then it is tabletop roleplaying.

If it is to collaborative on creating a fictional narrative by using the rules of a game then it is a story game.

It can be confusing because the same set of rules can be used for all three activities. Generally the differences in focus leads to different elements of the rules being emphasized or additional mechanics added.

Keep in mind that the only recognizable major difference between Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign and the other detailed wargame campaigns being run at the time was Dave didn't say no when the players wanted to ignore the overall scenario to pursue their own goal. Which specifically was not dealing with the attack on Castle Blackmoor by the Egg of Coot in favor of exploring dungeons.

Quote from: estar;1081294Only in the sense that it is an account of connected events.

Or do you think that chess players set out to create a narrative work?

That the fundamental question that needs to be answered, what is the intention of the group for this activity.

Well... intention is important to creating a story, but is it necessary. I'm not convinced, but I could be, that it is. The reason being that, no, the Chess players didn't set out to create a story, but sometimes they do anyway.

QuoteIf it is to compete or cooperate using a rules of game to beat some victory conditions then it is a wargame.

If it is to pretend to be character interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee using the rules of a game then it is tabletop roleplaying.

If it is to collaborative on creating a fictional narrative by using the rules of a game then it is a story game.

I'm not seeing the difference yet between RPG and Storygame on this definition. I see from one you could reasonably derive that Storygames are a subset of RPGs, as you can work to create a fictional narrative within the rules of a game with a human referee (or set of referees, or shifting referee, or something else... is this a point of distinction, perhaps?) and meet both criteria. But that still makes storygames a type of RPG, and still means D&D can be a storygame, as can any OSR.

Your definition of Wargame, I can certainly see where that gives you a clean break between RPGs and Wargames (unless someone wants to provide a counterexample. I can't think of any off the top of my head.)

QuoteIt can be confusing because the same set of rules can be used for all three activities. Generally the differences in focus leads to different elements of the rules being emphasized or additional mechanics added.

Keep in mind that the only recognizable major difference between Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign and the other detailed wargame campaigns being run at the time was Dave didn't say no when the players wanted to ignore the overall scenario to pursue their own goal. Which specifically was not dealing with the attack on Castle Blackmoor by the Egg of Coot in favor of exploring dungeons.

OK... so we're basically in agreement? I think we are, from what I'm reading, but then I'm still confused as to why there's any issue with there being a distinction between an RPG and the subset of Storygames. It seems to be a distinction that lacks a meaningful difference.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081298Well... intention is important to creating a story, but is it necessary. I'm not convinced, but I could be, that it is. The reason being that, no, the Chess players didn't set out to create a story, but sometimes they do anyway.

Everything we do as a human being is story in the sense of an account of events ordered in time. But that not the kind of story story games are about. Storygames are intended to creative fictional narratives collaboratively by using the rules of a game. There chess in contrast is a type of wargame where the point is to defeat your opponent by achieving the game's victory condition, checkmat  

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081298OK... so we're basically in agreement? I think we are, from what I'm reading, but then I'm still confused as to why there's any issue with there being a distinction between an RPG and the subset of Storygames. It seems to be a distinction that lacks a meaningful difference.

It is the difference between

"Hey why do you and I play a warrior and I play a wizard and we go the holodeck* and adventure in Lieber's City of Lankhmar.

"Hey why do you and I sit down in front of the computer and type out a story about a warrior and wizard adventuring in Lieber's City of Lanhkmar together."

In the first we pretend to be characters having adventures in some setting.

In the second we are authors crafting a story using the tools at hand. In my example a computer, in storygames the rules of a game.

In the former, you will not be able to do anything that your character can't do.

In the latter, we both can by authorial fiat introduce, alter, or delete setting elements, narrative event, and characters. With storygames is this process is structured by the rules of a game. Rather than just us bouncing ideas back and forth.

Hope this clarifies things,

*As is turned out pen, paper, dice and the procedure pioneered by Dave Arneson is good enough to create a pen & paper virtual reality and doesn't require a piece of fictional technology.

Well! Thank you for responding in the manner you did, estar!

Quote from: estar;1081314Everything we do as a human being is story in the sense of an account of events ordered in time. But that not the kind of story story games are about. Storygames are intended to creative fictional narratives collaboratively by using the rules of a game. There chess in contrast is a type of wargame where the point is to defeat your opponent by achieving the game's victory condition, checkmat(e)

OK, but what I mean is that a duel between two chess grand masters has a story, and each move tells a story, and that story is more than just an ordered series of time. It's a history and set of movements. It's a guile and a wit. It's a choice and counter choice that was made with reasoned analysis based on a historical and practical narrative of past-prologue that set the stage for that game. There is a story there.

That's what I'm getting at: there absolutely can be a story inherent in every game of chess in that regard. It might be a very simple story of two newbies learning to play together, but it is there. Are we in agreement on that or no? (If not, that's totally OK, I'm not saying my way is absolutely right, just that this is how I'm approaching it and perhaps in defining terms we'll figure out if and why we're not in agreement.)

QuoteIt is the difference between

"Hey why do you and I play a warrior and I play a wizard and we go the holodeck* and adventure in Lieber's City of Lankhmar.

"Hey why do you and I sit down in front of the computer and type out a story about a warrior and wizard adventuring in Lieber's City of Lanhkmar together."

In the first we pretend to be characters having adventures in some setting.

In the second we are authors crafting a story using the tools at hand. In my example a computer, in storygames the rules of a game.

In the former, you will not be able to do anything that your character can't do.

In the latter, we both can by authorial fiat introduce, alter, or delete setting elements, narrative event, and characters. With storygames is this process is structured by the rules of a game. Rather than just us bouncing ideas back and forth.

Hope this clarifies things,

*As is turned out pen, paper, dice and the procedure pioneered by Dave Arneson is good enough to create a pen & paper virtual reality and doesn't require a piece of fictional technology.

OK. So that is helpful, but it seems to me that there's an excluded middle in that setup. If those are just two ends of a spectrum, then cool! Absolutely agree. But for those to be hard and fast categories seems to miss aspects of both of those categories.

For example, my D&D games tend to have an ordered story. They're not sandboxes. Players step in with a knowledge of what the general theme is going to be and we go forward together. Characters live and die by the dice and the rules of the system. I don't pull punches. If a story has to be massively rewritten because of some bad dice rolls, so be it! However, we are, fundamentally, crafting a story with the tools at hand about a warrior and a wizard adventuring in Lieber's City of Lanhkmar together.

Now, on the other hand, you did cover pretty well where storygames start approaching the first category: there's a structure in place so it's not just authorial fiat. There's a way things are supposed to be done. There's a limit and you can push up against the limits. For example: Anima Prime is very player-driven and GM-driven to create backstories, elements of the setting, and other activities. Characters cannot die in it without approval of both GM and the player of that character. However, characters absolutely can and do fail and sometimes you have to ask yourself, "So the plot now went this direction, what should we do?" and the dice might not agree with where you wanted to go originally. So it's an exercise in how to use the game to tell the story and how to change the story because of what happened in the game.

I'd say, on the whole, Anima Prime falls far more heavily on the Storygame side... but it is still an RPG. It still has you, fundamentally, playing a character with a neutral referee who is running things. That referee maintains ultimate control, except in one regard set by the rules: death. Death is always plot driven in that game. Loss is not. And I would liken that restriction to AC in D&D. A DM could just eliminate AC and go with a different rule because the DM has ultimate authority, but that would be changing the fundamental nature of the game. It is, if you will, beyond the ultimate authority of the DM to do that without the players in that case. (Consent of the players can be as simple as continuing to play, however.)

Contrast that with authors crafting a story in the sense of sitting down at a table and writing out a whole story.

So I still come back to a point where it seems, to me, there's a distinction between traditional TTRPGS and Storygames, but it's a parent-child or super-and-subset relationship, not a categorical difference like, say TTRPGs to Chess.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081351Well! Thank you for responding in the manner you did, estar!



OK, but what I mean is that a duel between two chess grand masters has a story, and each move tells a story, and that story is more than just an ordered series of time. It's a history and set of movements. It's a guile and a wit. It's a choice and counter choice that was made with reasoned analysis based on a historical and practical narrative of past-prologue that set the stage for that game. There is a story there.

That's what I'm getting at: there absolutely can be a story inherent in every game of chess in that regard. It might be a very simple story of two newbies learning to play together, but it is there. Are we in agreement on that or no? (If not, that's totally OK, I'm not saying my way is absolutely right, just that this is how I'm approaching it and perhaps in defining terms we'll figure out if and why we're not in agreement.)



OK. So that is helpful, but it seems to me that there's an excluded middle in that setup. If those are just two ends of a spectrum, then cool! Absolutely agree. But for those to be hard and fast categories seems to miss aspects of both of those categories.

For example, my D&D games tend to have an ordered story. They're not sandboxes. Players step in with a knowledge of what the general theme is going to be and we go forward together. Characters live and die by the dice and the rules of the system. I don't pull punches. If a story has to be massively rewritten because of some bad dice rolls, so be it! However, we are, fundamentally, crafting a story with the tools at hand about a warrior and a wizard adventuring in Lieber's City of Lanhkmar together.

Now, on the other hand, you did cover pretty well where storygames start approaching the first category: there's a structure in place so it's not just authorial fiat. There's a way things are supposed to be done. There's a limit and you can push up against the limits. For example: Anima Prime is very player-driven and GM-driven to create backstories, elements of the setting, and other activities. Characters cannot die in it without approval of both GM and the player of that character. However, characters absolutely can and do fail and sometimes you have to ask yourself, "So the plot now went this direction, what should we do?" and the dice might not agree with where you wanted to go originally. So it's an exercise in how to use the game to tell the story and how to change the story because of what happened in the game.

I'd say, on the whole, Anima Prime falls far more heavily on the Storygame side... but it is still an RPG. It still has you, fundamentally, playing a character with a neutral referee who is running things. That referee maintains ultimate control, except in one regard set by the rules: death. Death is always plot driven in that game. Loss is not. And I would liken that restriction to AC in D&D. A DM could just eliminate AC and go with a different rule because the DM has ultimate authority, but that would be changing the fundamental nature of the game. It is, if you will, beyond the ultimate authority of the DM to do that without the players in that case. (Consent of the players can be as simple as continuing to play, however.)

Contrast that with authors crafting a story in the sense of sitting down at a table and writing out a whole story.

So I still come back to a point where it seems, to me, there's a distinction between traditional TTRPGS and Storygames, but it's a parent-child or super-and-subset relationship, not a categorical difference like, say TTRPGs to Chess.

Is Anima Prime at all like the original Anima? I've never run it, but when I played in a campaign, it felt deeply crunchy, not particularly story gamey (though I might not have been exposed to aspects of the system since I was just a player). But the amount of crunch made me think that story wasn't as much the focus as emulating anime combat and characters.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1081355Is Anima Prime at all like the original Anima? I've never run it, but when I played in a campaign, it felt deeply crunchy, not particularly story gamey (though I might not have been exposed to aspects of the system since I was just a player). But the amount of crunch made me think that story wasn't as much the focus as emulating anime combat and characters.

By original to you mean Anima: Beyond Fantasy? If so, they're actually not related. Which was weird.

Anima Prime (http://www.animaprimerpg.com/) is a D6 based system that has Exalted 3rd edition's combat engine, except Anima Prime developed it over a year before Exalted 3rd came up with a strangely similar system and its implementation is... well... just better (no obtuse language and problems with multiple sides in a combat causing a lot of Initiative tracking-none of that, but the Withering/Decisive type mechanic is there, better done, and makes a lot more sense). Far less crunchy to accomplish a lot more with a lot less confusion.

Anima and Anima Prime are very, very different systems. Anima Beyond Fantasy is definitely a fun, high crunch system. Anima Prime has a state goal of meeting wuxia style anime and Avatar the Last Airbender style stuff. Anima Prime is also a fun, high energy system that's low-to-moderate crunch.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081351OK, but what I mean is that a duel between two chess grand masters has a story, and each move tells a story, and that story is more than just an ordered series of time. It's a history and set of movements. It's a guile and a wit. It's a choice and counter choice that was made with reasoned analysis based on a historical and practical narrative of past-prologue that set the stage for that game. There is a story there.

Still only a story that is an account of connected events. Chess strategy is based on a understanding of openings, defenses, relative values of various positions in the middle game, and end game. It not a narrative but a description. There can be a story about the two human participants but not about the game they play.


OK. So that is helpful, but it seems to me that there's an excluded middle in that setup. If those are just two ends of a spectrum, then cool! Absolutely agree. But for those to be hard and fast categories seems to miss aspects of both of those categories.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081351For example, my D&D games tend to have an ordered story. They're not sandboxes. Players step in with a knowledge of what the general theme is going to be and we go forward together. Characters live and die by the dice and the rules of the system. I don't pull punches. If a story has to be massively rewritten because of some bad dice rolls, so be it! However, we are, fundamentally, crafting a story with the tools at hand about a warrior and a wizard adventuring in Lieber's City of Lanhkmar together.

It about focus. Storygames have a metagame to force the outcome of sessions to fit a narrative structures. One that manipulated by the participant as themselves not as their character. Traditional tabletop roleplaying game do not consider anything other than does the action make sense in terms of the setting and what the character is capable of doing. If so what are the odds of success or it is an automatic success or failure.

Where things get muddled is that not all metagame mechanics are equal. If we are just talking about luck points that benefit a roll then it likely the focus isn't going to be creating a story. If if something like Blades of the Dark when each session has a specific structure as to how it plays out then it safe to say that focus shifted to collaborative storytelling.

The figure out whether something is metagaming or not you need to ask "Am I using this as a player or am I doing this as my character?" Which is why altering a setting using the ability of an Amberite is not metagaming and it is when you spend a fate point to create an advantage in Fate. Because in the setting Amber some have the ability to alter reality itself. While Fate it is a game mechanic meant to be used as the player to influence the narrative of the game. And is not an ability of the character the player is playing.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081351Now, on the other hand, you did cover pretty well where storygames start approaching the first category: there's a structure in place so it's not just authorial fiat. There's a way things are supposed to be done. There's a limit and you can push up against the limits. For example: Anima Prime is very player-driven and GM-driven to create backstories, elements of the setting, and other activities. Characters cannot die in it without approval of both GM and the player of that character. However, characters absolutely can and do fail and sometimes you have to ask yourself, "So the plot now went this direction, what should we do?" and the dice might not agree with where you wanted to go originally. So it's an exercise in how to use the game to tell the story and how to change the story because of what happened in the game.

I'd say, on the whole, Anima Prime falls far more heavily on the Storygame side... but it is still an RPG. It still has you, fundamentally, playing a character with a neutral referee who is running things. That referee maintains ultimate control, except in one regard set by the rules: death. Death is always plot driven in that game. Loss is not. And I would liken that restriction to AC in D&D. A DM could just eliminate AC and go with a different rule because the DM has ultimate authority, but that would be changing the fundamental nature of the game. It is, if you will, beyond the ultimate authority of the DM to do that without the players in that case. (Consent of the players can be as simple as continuing to play, however.)

I know you may disagree about the following. After discussing the genesis of tabletop roleplaying games for a long time, I felt I finally hit on the simplistic and most accurate description of what made Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. He said yes when players started to ignore the scenario in favor of dungeon exploration instead of saying no you need to focus on figuring out how to defeat the Egg of Coot. Now there were a lot of elements that Dave and his immediate predecessor had to develop to make that yes meaningful enough to give birth to a new hobby. But that the key element that pushed Blackmoor over into being the first tabletop roleplaying campaign rather than being a very sophiscated wargaming campaign.

Likewise with storygame versus traditional tabletop roleplaying games. If things other than the reality of the setting and the capabilities of the character are used to determined the outcome of an action then it metagaming and the focus has shifted to collaborative storytelling rather than pretending to be a character having adventures in a setting.

Now where many get hung up with this is there is a feeling that if you adopt the above for traditional tabletop roleplaying that there always only one outcome for anything the players describe as their character. That not true, the life of even a fictional setting is complex and nuanced enough so that there are often many plausible outcomes of something that being attempted. It is the job of the referee to pick the one that the most interesting based on what ones know about the group they are playing with.

The heart of the difference between wargames and tabletop roleplaying is wargames have victory conditions and tabletop roleplaying doesn't. In SJ Games Melee or Wizard your goal is to kill all the other combatants. Into the Labyrinth your goal is to pretend to be a character exploring a fantasy world. In the Labyrinth goes into a lot of detail about building underground labyrinths but also supports just about anything characters do in an a fantasy world. A In the Labyrinth campaign where characters never bother to explore a labyrinth can be easily run.

In Blades in the Dark the goal is to collaboratively create a story about a caper or heist in a dark noir setting using the narrative structure of the Score. You could ignore the structure of the Score and build a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign out of it but a lot of the mechanics resolve around being used at the proper time during the Score. Unlike Dave Arneson and Blackmoor, a Blades in the Dark referee would be hard put to say yes to the players ignoring the Score's narrative. In some storygame I encountered the narrative structure is so ridge and the mechanics so abstract that to me it feel more like a wargame with rigid victory conditions than collaboratively creating a story.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081351So I still come back to a point where it seems, to me, there's a distinction between traditional TTRPGS and Storygames, but it's a parent-child or super-and-subset relationship, not a categorical difference like, say TTRPGs to Chess.

Maybe this will help. It not the best presentation but the following is a video me running an adventure I call Decits of the Russet Lord using a variant of OD&D. Keep in mind I have no idea how this will turn out for Brendan, Adam and the rest of the group. I setup a situation and throw the players in the middle of it. I cause the character to react based on their personalities and motivations as if they were dealing with what players do or don't do as their character.

[video=youtube;z4rj5YsBqc8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4rj5YsBqc8[/youtube]

I ran a LARP event in early 2000s similar to above and there because of the limitations of live action, I couldn't be as free form. Certain encounters had to happen at certain times to the fact I have to physically transport props and people around. So I structured those encounters into a narrative that I knew that the players would likely follow and like. And had contingencies in case the outcome of an encounter turned out very different than expected.  If I had the manpower and logistic but I would ran like the video but reality dictated otherwise.

In general in boffer LARPS, friday night was the opening action that established the premise of the weekend. Late Friday to mid Saturday afternoon a series of parallel encounter and adventures would be run that fed the players information about the premise. Around 4 to 5 Saturday afternoon, the first climatic action would be conducted establishing urgency. Then from then until around 8 pm Saturday afternoon a series of encounter or adventures would be run that reinforce the urgency of the moment. Finally Saturday evening was the final climax where everything went down and was resolved. A short denouncement would often occur afterwards setting resolving loose ends and setting things up for the next event.

Your staff got to eat, sleep, and rest hence the somewhat rigid structure. It was fun and the immersion of live action very addictive. But no where near as flexible as tabletop roleplaying. All of this is a result of shifting the focus to roleplaying with the action being resolved by the rules of a sport (which the rules of a boffer larp boils down to).

The same with shifting the focus to collabrative storytelling. Now you have to think as a player what best fits the narrative we are trying to create rather than what I would do in this situation as my character. IN short you have to metagame. And often how much you can metagame it limited by the mechanics of the storygame. Like LARPS it can be addicting and fun but it not the same thing as tabletop roleplaying. Just as playing towards a victory condition in wargaming is not the same thing as tabletop roleplaying. And like wargaming where the game involves playing individuals and a campaign (like running a ludus of gladiators), it can be hard to figure out where one ends and the other begins.

When 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.

As for storygames, I think what has been said earlier in the thread still holds: it's one aspect of role-playing (story-telling) taken to an extreme. If you take another aspect, say gamism, to an extreme, you get RPG campaigns in which the players only care about getting the loot and XPs and all characterization or focus on story is ditched. If you take simulationism to the extreme, you might get systems that are highly realistic but not very playable due to sheer complexity. And I suppose you could take improv acting in role-playing to its extremes too - forgetting about rules and about the scenario's on-going story and just enjoying to act in character with each other.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081287Everything tells a story. The question is whether or not you are listening.

No. No it does not. A rock from space is not telling any story at all. It is a rock from space.

Again 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.

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.

Except 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.

Unlike 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.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081368As for storygames, I think what has been said earlier in the thread still holds: it's one aspect of role-playing (story-telling) taken to an extreme.

Roleplaying is not storytelling, it is what you decide to do as your character within the setting of the campaign. For some this means acting as version of themselves with a change of name and the abilities of their character. For others it mean adopting a different personality, motivations, and doing "funny voices".

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081368If you take another aspect, say gamism, to an extreme, you get RPG campaigns in which the players only care about getting the loot and XPs and all characterization or focus on story is ditched.

It called greed and ambition and a common set of real world motivations for how a person acts. As for characterization, they are roleplaying as if they are there as the character. Just in a way you disapprove of.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081368If you take simulationism to the extreme, you might get systems that are highly realistic but not very playable due to sheer complexity.

That is a metagame issues resulting from how a referee or a group decides to adjudicates things. It is a matter of a taste. I enjoy GURPS with all the options, many of my friends who are hobbyists do not. Neither one of us is right nor neither one of us is wrong.

I know people who made Chivalry & Sorcery, Dragonquest, Universe, and Space Opera work. Most I know think those RPGs are over ally complicated and almost unreadable for they are trying to do.  

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081368And I suppose you could take improv acting in role-playing to its extremes too - forgetting about rules and about the scenario's on-going story and just enjoying to act in character with each other.

Sounds 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.

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.

Again 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.

Story is merely a narration of changes of state. Literary stories are merely particularly interesting and/or insightful stories, often dramatized aka skillfully exaggerated. A big part of the job of a sports journalist, for example, is literally re-telling the story of a football match (changes of state) from his perspective.

As to rocks from space, I am pretty sure we can find many news articles about rocks from space, usually involving a story involving that rock form space. So, yes, pretty much everything involving change tells a story.

What's note-worthy is that when we look at the genres we most commonly find in RPGs, that they usually involved dramatized fiction - a special type of story.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081390Story is merely a narration of changes of state. Literary stories are merely particularly interesting and/or insightful stories, often dramatized aka skillfully exaggerated. A big part of the job of a sports journalist, for example, is literally re-telling the story of a football match (changes of state) from his perspective.

I don't know that changes of state=story. That can also describe historical narratives (in the sense of the part of history where the historian strings together a description of the events). It isn't story in the sense people usually mean when they talk about story in RPGs. The whole point of talking about story in an RPG, is usually so the game can be more than just a sequence of events or changes of state. So I think, like I said before, a lot of the problem in these discussions arises when people try to win a playstyle argument by controlling the language and undermining the language of their opponents. You see this when people equivocate on the multiple meanings of story (i.e. going from 'stuff that happened' to 'literary stories' in order to argue that RPGs should or should not be about the latter).

Also is it fair to call sports journalism writing a story? Wouldn't it be more precise to call it an 'account'. Also, not all sports journalism engages in telling sequences of events. A lot of it is analysis, which can be pretty far removed from story (history too has its analysis component).

Frankly I am fine with games having whatever people want in them. If folks want story. They should have it. If they want narrative mechanics, I am fine with that. The only time I find myself irked in these discussions is when people try to convince me to adopt their taste, or that all games should do X, with the kinds of arguments I described above.

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.

Then I'm sorry you're not listening to what the space rock has to say.

QuoteAgain 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.

Is it? What did I say that makes it "everything on earth?" Because it seems to me this is a strawman you set up that has nothing to do with what I said. I have been able to make and show categorical exclusions of what is and is not an RPG under the definitions I've put forward.

Quote from: estar;1081363(ester's long, well thought out response to me)

OK. That is good stuff and helps me see where the comparison is coming from. I don't see where the vitriol is coming from (not from you, you have been very helpful and I have not seen any overt anger, so thank you), but now I'm starting to get a clearer picture of the comparison. I particularly appreciate the LARP and Blades in the Dark comparisons. So thanks!

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.

Say 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."

Further, 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? If so, then the definition of storygame seems to not rest with solely the game, but with the GM.

Or does that just fit under your last line of:

QuoteSounds 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1081394I don't know that changes of state=story. That can also describe historical narratives (in the sense of the part of history where the historian strings together a description of the events). It isn't story in the sense people usually mean when they talk about story in RPGs.

...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.)

QuoteThe whole point of talking about story in an RPG, is usually so the game can be more than just a sequence of events or changes of state. So I think, like I said before, a lot of the problem in these discussions arises when people try to win a playstyle argument by controlling the language and undermining the language of their opponents. You see this when people equivocate on the multiple meanings of story (i.e. going from 'stuff that happened' to 'literary stories' in order to argue that RPGs should or should not be about the latter).

Also is it fair to call sports journalism writing a story? Wouldn't it be more precise to call it an 'account'. Also, not all sports journalism engages in telling sequences of events. A lot of it is analysis, which can be pretty far removed from story (history too has its analysis component).

Frankly I am fine with games having whatever people want in them. If folks want story. They should have it. If they want narrative mechanics, I am fine with that. The only time I find myself irked in these discussions is when people try to convince me to adopt their taste, or that all games should do X, with the kinds of arguments I described above.

So 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.)

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 (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/story)

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."