Quote from: Willie the Duck;1002245If fate points are the point of stasis between whatever normal/baseline is and whatever we're talking about with this vague Indie/Story/Whatever distinction, then the distinction is meaningless. Fate points are an arbitrary ablative survival and pacing mechanism, roughly the same as hp. The entire premise of this thread is pointless--fairly blatant self-back-patting over not doing something arbitrarily deemed inferior, but if fate points are the hill where we've ended up fighting upon, then that is truly depressing.

are fate points the hill we've ended up fighting upon?  I must have missed that.  I mean they've been mentioned...but so have many other things.

Indie is meaningless. In the days of yore it meant something, when there was an "industry". Now, almost everything is indie.

TradRPG is a redundant label for people who think that Fiasco is a RPG. RPG is RPG. Storygame is Storygame. Storytelling Game (in the Vampire sense) is just marketing.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;1002279are fate points the hill we've ended up fighting upon?  I must have missed that.  I mean they've been mentioned...but so have many other things.

They are just one. I'm just saying if that's what we're fighting over, then we are fighting over nothing.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1002284Indie is meaningless. In the days of yore it meant something, when there was an "industry". Now, almost everything is indie.

TradRPG is a redundant label for people who think that Fiasco is a RPG. RPG is RPG. Storygame is Storygame. Storytelling Game (in the Vampire sense) is just marketing.

This is pretty much how I see it. I can appreciate that something like Fiasco is wholeheartedly a different approach to gaming in the D&D style. The main focus is on constructing a story through player choices, which can then be role-played through scenes as you wish. In D&D, you are primarily playing a role and making decisions for a character, which then may develop a story as the players wish. The emphasis is polar opposite, essentially. So 'Story Game' and 'Role Playing Game' highlights this, but there is some overlap.

In the case of White Wolf's 'Storytelling system' it is obviously a marketing moniker. However, it should also be remembered that Vampire et al, largely predates much of the story-gaming movement. It was an earnest attempt in the early days as a sort of forerunner or antecedent story-game, where such things as integrating theme and mood and story construction were at least discussed with a few mechanical nods here and there (as in the personality mechanics).

The charge that they 'only paid lip service' or that the design was 'incoherent' by later Forge-based critics was unfair on the grounds that, a) at the time, it was pretty cutting edge and it was ultimately a lot more popular and successful as a mode of game than anything to come out of the Forge and b) the term 'story game' was only coined sometime after White Wolf was in it's heyday, at least partially as a reaction to White Wolf's success.

To answer the original question: Because they have mechanics in weird places. Indie rpg developers seem to think there is something wrong with traditional mechanics and they get in the way of telling a story. I solve that by going ruleslight. I do like some of the ideas those rpg's bring to the table, but I would never use it as a foundation for my games.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;1002983Indie rpg developers seem to think there is something wrong with traditional mechanics and they get in the way of telling a story.

Another generalization that is most likely wrong... This conversation only makes sense if people talk about specific games. We don't even know which "traditional" games you like in comparison to some "indie" game that you don't like, and whether your dislike of said "indie" game is even based on reading the book, let alone actually playing the game, or if the dislike is just because you don't like "story games" and you imagine a particular "indie" game is the kind of "story game" you don't like.

Frank

Quote from: jan paparazzi;1002983To answer the original question: Because they have mechanics in weird places. Indie rpg developers seem to think there is something wrong with traditional mechanics and they get in the way of telling a story. I solve that by going ruleslight. I do like some of the ideas those rpg's bring to the table, but I would never use it as a foundation for my games.

From knowing a number of indie RPG developers, I think your interpretation of them is off. Just because someone releases a diceless RPG (for example) doesn't mean that they necessarily think something is wrong with dice.

A lot of people play and enjoy D&D, but also enjoy Fiasco. They don't think something is wrong with traditional RPGs, but they'll still publish a game that is non-traditional, because it's something new that they also like.

EDITED TO ADD: There are some people who do think something is wrong with traditional mechanics, but that isn't the majority of developers.

Quote from: jhkim;1003038From knowing a number of indie RPG developers, I think your interpretation of them is off. Just because someone releases a diceless RPG (for example) doesn't mean that they necessarily think something is wrong with dice.

A lot of people play and enjoy D&D, but also enjoy Fiasco. They don't think something is wrong with traditional RPGs, but they'll still publish a game that is non-traditional, because it's something new that they also like.

EDITED TO ADD: There are some people who do think something is wrong with traditional mechanics, but that isn't the majority of developers.

I think one of the most egregious things I ever picked up from self styled indie gamers was the manner in which they attributed criticisms of the games they liked as being something to do with the gaming style (in the GNS sense) of the gamer. In effect, it turned the art of game design into simply a matter of ad hominem - if you didn't like Sorcerer or My Life With Master or Burning Wheel, it wasn't because of the game's mechanics or tone or concept - it was because you weren't the right type of 'Narrativist' gamer to appreciate their unquestionable brilliance. To my mind, it actually regressed game design as an art form, rather than progressed it.

So yes, I think you can appreciate both D&D and Fiasco and no, I don't think there is anything unusual in that.

I am eager to try almost anything.

After playing Fiasco, which I had fun with, I had to ask: "Ok, but where's the game?"

After playing Fate, which was OK, I had to ask: "Why am I so disconnected from my own character?"


And I came to the conclusion that these games simply were not made for me--and that's OK.

I like world simulation and those games are about genre emulation.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1003159I am eager to try almost anything.

After playing Fiasco, which I had fun with, I had to ask: "Ok, but where's the game?"

After playing Fate, which was OK, I had to ask: "Why am I so disconnected from my own character?"


And I came to the conclusion that these games simply were not made for me--and that's OK.

I like world simulation and those games are about genre emulation.

I don't know those games, but thanks for being specific. I do understand how some of the "indie" games might make one feel there is no "game". And yea, if that feels missing to you, you may not like the game at all, or may not consider it an RPG depending on how important "game" is to your RPG. And it makes sense that different mechanics will create a different degree of disconnectedness (or immersion breakage) for different people.

Do you think you could pinpoint what it was about each of these games that made you feel the way you do?

Frank

Quote from: AaronBrown99;1001672Does "Castle Falkenstein" count as a storygame?

No. But Baron Munchausen was (or at least, was a pre-storygame, since storygames didn't exist by that name yet).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004236No. But Baron Munchausen was (or at least, was a pre-storygame, since storygames didn't exist by that name yet).

You know, when I first heard about Baron Munchausen, my first reaction was "Yeah, that might be fun once or twice, but I can't see spending money on it."  A lot of things I've seen labeled as "storygames" seem to be like that; maybe fun once or twice.

But that's just me, as Cosgrove says.  Make of that what you will.  ("I could make a hat, or a corsage, or a pterodactyl...")

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004300You know, when I first heard about Baron Munchausen, my first reaction was "Yeah, that might be fun once or twice, but I can't see spending money on it."  A lot of things I've seen labeled as "storygames" seem to be like that; maybe fun once or twice.

But that's just me, as Cosgrove says.  Make of that what you will.  ("I could make a hat, or a corsage, or a pterodactyl...")

Nothing wrong with playing (and enjoying) a game only once or twice, not everything needs to be a campaign. One-shots have given me a huge amount of enjoyment, parallel to my long-term campaigns.

Besides, I've got multiple RPGs still in their shrinkwrap or untouched in my PDF library, I would love to break some of them out for even a single session.

Quote from: Redforce;1000369I 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!"

Some RPGs are only about the role-play. Everything else, to hell with. It gets worse when Prozac users want to role-play out their deviant thoughts at the table.

Anyway, just read the Twitter feeds of indie game designers. Then you'll understand why.