I don't currently role-play, but I read about RPGs from time to time when I'm bored or in the mood or whatever.  I have look at a bunch of those Indie RPGs, and I just don't get it- I either can't fully grok the rules, or fail to see how you could have fun playing them.

The ones that require to 'frame a scene' or 'set the stakes' - doesn't that pull you out of the immersion?  Isn't it too much of a pain in the ass?  And doesn't it sound to you like some wussy theater geek crapola?
There are others that need too much resource management, and some others that seem just plain weird, and too much trouble (like PbtA).

My wife, who is not even what you'd call remotely interested in geek stuff (though she likes some Star Trek, and some board games), seemed to catch on fairly quickly to the 'traditional' RPGs the few times we've played (Vampire the Masquerade, True20), but I think even she would scoff at those fancy-pants pretentious games.  

I HAVE seen a few that I 'get' - like Fiasco, but those are usually very genre-specific or good for one-shots.  

Am I nuts or dumb?  Do you guys 'get' and play these kinds of games?  
And how long do you think it will take before Pundit swoops into the thread?  "A mind untainted by The Swine!!  Must act quickly!"

I don't get them either.

This question is in danger of drifting into territory that will get it moved to the "storygames" forum, but let me see if I can hint at an answer from the traditional RPG perspective:

Storygames are all over the place, and quite a few "Indie" games are hybrids.  For example, Burning Wheel, and its various offshoots are almost traditional in most respects (but not all). If we were back with our old college crowd, I could run a game of Torchbearer for y'all that I think you would enjoy and "get."  It would undeniably be a different experience than playing, say, AD&D in a dungeon crawl, but with considerable overlap.  A big aspect of it is that it takes the operational play aspects of dungeon crawls (resource management, pushing your luck going deeper, when to rest, etc.) and turns them up to 11.  So you could relate to that as, "Same thing we were already doing, but artificially exaggerated to an extreme."  You'd still chafe that your inventory makes no in-character sense, that visiting a town is circumscribed, and so forth, but the game play aspects would probably make up for it, and at least you could understand what it is trying to do.  Whether you would ultimately want to continue would depend upon how well the group got into the operational game aspects of it or not.  It's a very funny game, in a cruel way, if players are doing their best, as it is designed to drive the party into desperate straits.  But if you aren't into that, it's merely cruel.  Or if you are, but the rest of the players aren't, it's a frustrating, slow-motion train wreck.

A lot of Indie games are incredibly light, and would need to be compared to something like Basic D&D.  Trivially easy to pick up if there is one person at the table that already gets it, maybe more difficult if the group has to work it out for themselves.  Eventually, an average person will get it--if it seems interesting enough for them to continue.  Contrast that with something like AD&D with all the options in place.  Or maybe even GURPS or Hero.  There are Indie games like that, as well, sometimes with very different goals.  It can be a steep curve if you go it alone, and given the different goals, potentially wasted effort.  Burning Wheel (in its final version) is a reasonably well-written, well-organized game, with clear and direct advice on how to make it work, but it is also very complex and targeted in its play experience. Whereas something like, say, "The Shadows of Yesterday," is so light that you can get the idea almost immediately.  Only problem there is nothing there to support you to get started, unless you bring it in from another source.

One of the biggest differences though, to way over-generalize, is that it is easier to screw up a traditional game and still have fun.  Think about early D&D or Runequest, where no one knows what they are doing, you TPK, and roll up new characters and try again.  In many story games, if you don't know what you are doing, there is a period of sitting around with blank stares trying to get to the fun part.

Thank you for the insightful reply, Steven.

I think you may have hit the crux of my problem with them - "Only problem there is nothing there to support you to get started...".  I look at these games and think, what am I supposed to DO with this?
I think that's also a falling-down point with a lot of other people - they see terms like 'frame the scene' and 'set the stakes', then there is no class, race, or skill list, and they 'panic' - not enough information can be as bad as too much.  Character creation, too - if I know my wife as well as I think I do, she would much prefer a set list of classes / skills / etc. to pick from a menu of choices, rather than the GM asking 'what kind of character do you want to play?'  

Of course, I could be wrong - several years ago, I ran a one-shot for her at Halloween, where she was a soul in Hades on the river Styx, and there were six levels of 'hell' she had to visit.  She had to guess what each level meant metaphorically, or her soul would be trapped in Hades.  It cost one 'coin' (I used pennies) to get the ferryman to take her to one level / island, and an extra coin to ask one question - there was a limit to the coins (I think like maybe 9 or 10).  She finally got through with some prompting from me (I think the levels were maybe TOO metaphorical), but all in all she seemed to enjoy it.

First and foremost, let's make clear: Despite (depending on where you hang out) constantly hearing about these things, these are niche games played by a minority of gamers. Most people don't play them, and may or may not grok, get, or get the appeal of them. Not unlike most forms of art or entertainment with the words 'indie' or 'experimental' in them. They are a small, niche subset of the gaming world that is off doing their own crazy thing. You should in no way feel like you are missing anything if these games don't appeal to you.

That said, I don't see the value in calling them names. They are doing their own thing and for the most part leaving well enough alone. They are easy enough to avoid, and frankly as relevant to my traditional RPG interests as boardgamers, wargamers, CCG-players, or SCA members.

I call things names to be sarcastically funny.  That's pretty much about the only reason.

I think there were a number of writers who dug into sociology theory or linguistics, tried to apply what they thought were more meaningful paradigms, and then promptly forgot their audience is RPG players. When I hear "frames" I think of this guy.

The sound like torture to me, too, for the most part. I think what you "don't get" may be that there are people who don't think that sounds like torture, but who also think games about imaginary storylines sound fun.

The one I do find interesting is Microscope, but even there, for me it depends on being compatible with the other players, and mainly I'm interested in a new way to make game world backgrounds for more traditional RPG play, not so much as a way I would tend to want to play for its own sake... In fact I almost think the word "play" is wrong, because it's more like a collaborative imagination game, and the activity seems like I want a different word for it... I guess "play" is ok, but it's a very different sort of thing - collaborative storytelling with some meta-rules.

I think indie games tend to focus on things that most games don't, so they seem strange initially.  They're just different is all.

The biggest disconnect I see is when people try to view an indie/storygame through the lens of a more traditional RPG.

For example, compare Call of Cthulhu to the new Lovecraftesque. They're both designed to create stories in the tradition of Lovecraftian cosmic horror, but they come at it from different angles.

Call of Cthulhu is a traditional game where a GM prepares some sort of scenario, including plot threads, clues, etc. The players each take on the role of an investigator trying to piece all that together and come up with a solution to the mystery/problem/etc.

Lovecraftesque has no GM, and there's only one single "PC" character in the game. The players initially decide on a selection of locations, clues, and odd things that might be encountered in the game session. Then the play goes around the table, with one person acting as the Witness (PC), one as the Narrator (kind of a GM, but not really), and the others are Watchers (who interject with ideas occasionally). Each turn, the players make up the next scene in the Witnesses tale, completely off the cuff. They throw in a clue, and try to connect it to the ongoing story. Then, when the turn ends, the Witness and Narrator roles are handed to the next players, and it begins again.

So, as you see, these two games both attempt to model telling stories of Lovecraftian horror, but they both come at them from different positions and design goals.

Is one better than the other? No, not at all. But they'll obviously appeal to different types of players.

Instead of dismissing story gaming entirely, why don't you try giving one or two a try? But don't go into (EG) Dogs in the Vineyard expecting it to be just like (EG) D&D. They're both designed to do two different types of things.

(And as a bit of background, I'll point out that my current favorite games are AD&D 1e, Basic Fantasy, Savage Worlds Fate Accelerated, Lovecraftesque, Fiasco, and Microscope.)

Quote from: Skarg;1000399...for me it depends on being compatible with the other players

That's the rock my ship always crashes on. Storygames often strike me as being much more competitive than 'trad' RPGs... despite the claims of being cooperative... and I have a much narrower swath of people I'm willing to play competitive games with.

Quote from: Redforce;1000369I HAVE seen a few that I 'get' - like Fiasco, but those are usually very genre-specific or good for one-shots.

I also wanted to address this. Some of the best story games that I've seen are really about focussing in on doing one thing. But that's their point. Instead of being like D&D and saying "Have any kind of fantasy adventure you want, in any sort of fantasy world you want. Go nuts." A story game might say, "Let's see what it would be like to be animated skeletons guarding a tomb."

And so a game like that does one thing, and doesn't try to be something bigger than it is. And often, yes, it's designed just for a one shot. Think of them almost like experimental films. The designer just had a strange idea, and wanted to play with it and see how it might work. And that experimental idea will appeal to some people, and will not appeal to others.

Quote from: Simlasa;1000408That's the rock my ship always crashes on. Storygames often strike me as being much more competitive than 'trad' RPGs... despite the claims of being cooperative... and I have a much narrower swath of people I'm willing to play competitive games with.

It's the difference between all the players working together to "win a quest" and the players working together to "tell a story", I suppose.

One of the greatest games I've played in the last few years was a Fate-based Star Wars game set in the early days of the Jedi order. Toward the end of a session, one of the PCs was turned to the Dark Side (it'd been a slope he'd been going down for a few sessions). That culminated in a fight between my Jedi and his guy, and he was blasting me with Force-lightning, and I tried to block it with my lightsaber. But I rolled abysmally, and his blast got through, and we all decided that what happened was my lightsaber overloaded and blew up, taking my arm off with it.

And I was having a great time. To me, that just felt like the perfect progression of the story. Also, I took it as a badge of honor that my guy was the first guy in the campaign to lose his hand. It just seemed like such a "Star Wars" thing to happen.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000396First and foremost, let's make clear: Despite (depending on where you hang out) constantly hearing about these things, these are niche games played by a minority of gamers. Most people don't play them, and may or may not grok, get, or get the appeal of them. Not unlike most forms of art or entertainment with the words 'indie' or 'experimental' in them. They are a small, niche subset of the gaming world that is off doing their own crazy thing. You should in no way feel like you are missing anything if these games don't appeal to you.

Yep, and there is a completely innocuous but unavoidable side effect of that aspect.  The chances that an existing, traditional gaming group will all enjoy the same storygame is vanishingly small.  Sure, if you have a group filled with nothing but avid gamers, with wide interests, and most of them ready to GM something, you can probably find a storygame that you'll enjoy too.  But on the other end, you have traditional groups that already have very strong preferences on genre, rules systems, settings, etc. even within traditional games, let alone games that pursue a niche.  Not every traditional group even wants to play Paranoia or Toon or GURPs or D&D or what have you.  Why would something potentially even more niche be appealing, unless you happened to strike lightning?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1000412Yep, and there is a completely innocuous but unavoidable side effect of that aspect.  The chances that an existing, traditional gaming group will all enjoy the same storygame is vanishingly small.  Sure, if you have a group filled with nothing but avid gamers, with wide interests, and most of them ready to GM something, you can probably find a storygame that you'll enjoy too.  But on the other end, you have traditional groups that already have very strong preferences on genre, rules systems, settings, etc. even within traditional games, let alone games that pursue a niche.  Not every traditional group even wants to play Paranoia or Toon or GURPs or D&D or what have you.  Why would something potentially even more niche be appealing, unless you happened to strike lightning?

I'm lucky in that even my trad AD&D group is willing to try one shots of weird story games from time to time. But I present them just as that "Hey, I have this weird game I want to try out; who's up for a one-shot?", and then whichever players are interested come over and we play something different. It doesn't detract from my core campaign, just something else to do once in a while.