Quote from: spon;1000871What they do have in common is that they aren't trying to create or simulate a "realistic" world using the rules. The rules are there to guide the play in a particular fashion, not (necessarily) to help the GM adjudicate situations. ...

"Trying to create and simulate a "realistic" world using the rules" is one of the main things I am interested in in RPGs, even moreso than most "traditional" RPGs do. The rules I want are the ones that can help me do that, not ones that make the game about something on the narrative plane. I don't even much like blatant narrativium in a book, movie, or TV show, let alone a role-playing game. For me it's not so much difficult as something I'm clear isn't the thing I want to be doing, or if I did, it would be another type of thing from what I usually want to do in an RPG.

Quote from: Skarg;1001044"Trying to create and simulate a "realistic" world using the rules" is one of the main things I am interested in in RPGs, even moreso than most "traditional" RPGs do.

I used to think that but I broaden that up a bit. For me point of the rules of a RPG that it is a tool to help me create an experience of the players living within a given setting as their characters. Sometime that mean realism but when it comes to something like a superhero campaign or a swords and sorcery swashbuckling campaign I am doing something different.

An experience is not living out the story. It about going someplace in some time period doing, hopefully, interesting things. As far I am concerned, narrative mechanics work against that whether it is being a cartoon bunny, trying to live in a world ruled by a mad computer, trying to get rich mining asteroids, winning the game of thrones, or trying steal the prints for the latest soviet fighter jet.

Quote from: Skarg;1001044"Trying to create and simulate a "realistic" world using the rules" is one of the main things I am interested in in RPGs, even moreso than most "traditional" RPGs do. The rules I want are the ones that can help me do that, not ones that make the game about something on the narrative plane. I don't even much like blatant narrativium in a book, movie, or TV show, let alone a role-playing game. For me it's not so much difficult as something I'm clear isn't the thing I want to be doing, or if I did, it would be another type of thing from what I usually want to do in an RPG.

A long time ago, I went from "realistic" to "coherent and interesting." Other than that, this.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;1000805this - "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."

It sounds like a horrible experience to me.  I absolutely do not want to be sitting in a room with a bunch of people collaborating on writing a story.  It sounds like a recipe for dumb shit.  It's not what I want to do in my gaming.  That's just me...I'm not saying it's bad or wrong or not fun.  If it's what you or any other person wants to do when they take part in an evening of gaming then go for it and have a blast.  It's not what I'm interested in.  I don't want to take part in a game where "each player takes turns making up scenes and creating story elements."  To me, it just sounds like some silly creative writing exercise...for me, it would never in a million years feel like anything more than just me and some friends sitting around adding lines to a (probably terrible) story.  There would be zero immersion - no feeling that I was anywhere but on a couch making stuff up with some other people.

Cool, no worries. Different strokes and all.

Quote from: Skarg;1001039Really? Do you really think so, or are you mainly just trolling this thread?

You DO know who you're talking to, yes?

Just put the ass-munch on ignore like the rest of us and have a useful discussion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1000648First rigid example that comes to mind is Carolina Death Crawl.  You know exactly when characters are going to die, pretty much, so the overall story/plot is known, you're just finding out who and how.

It's weird, because I have played Carolina Death Crawl a couple of times and both were distinct (hardcore!) experiences in their own right. It's a fantastic game, but not one for a date night I would suggest.

I would definitely say I (we) had a lot more flexibility in true character roleplaying than in any number of (still fun!) dungeon crawls I've played over the years.


To expand a little further. Raid the Frost Giant Hall, kill the Jarl, steal the gold. I mean you know what's going to happen, why bother to play this D&D adventure?

There are story milestones in CDC, absolutely, but those basically keep the unfolding story within a framework, they don't straitjacket it, beyond the basic premise.

And the specific competitive nature of the game adds a whole lot of spice as well (that some folks definitely would bounce off of).

Plus the whole Swamp Ghost thing, love that mechanic. (IIRC Wraith had something similar, but the one time we ran that mechanic broke our game lol).

Quote from: Motorskills;1001189There are story milestones in CDC, absolutely, but those basically keep the unfolding story within a framework, they don't straitjacket it, beyond the basic premise.

The basic premise is pretty much a straightjacket.  No matter what you do, the PCs die off at defined moments until one is left.

You know what's going to happen with the Frost Giant Jarl?  No you don't.  It could be a TPK. You could leave to get reinforcements (or just leave).  You could decide to work for the Jarl and convince him to use you as human agents.  It's wide open, because it's an adventure for a roleplaying game, not a storytelling game.

Sure you get to roleplay out your scenes in CDC, and in typical storygame fashion, they're meant to be "intense" (ie. transgressive), but it got mentioned as an example of rigidity, and as far as the overall plot goes, it's pretty damn rigid.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1001195Sure you get to roleplay out your scenes in CDC, and in typical storygame fashion, they're meant to be "intense" (ie. transgressive), but it got mentioned as an example of rigidity, and as far as the overall plot goes, it's pretty damn rigid.

I think that kind of thing is a big reason why storygames as a whole don't tend to interest me.  I don't have anything against them--even like them as an idea.  However, even in a traditional game (or even the historic, traditional story telling session that predates games), I don't particular care for either rigid stories or ones where the teller makes it up as they go.  I want some structure, some judgment, and some improvisation.  If I don't want the sole GM to be very rigid or completely floppy, then it stands to reason that the idea of the whole group being rigid or floppy doesn't appeal either.  That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for many of the storygames to appeal.

I do like things that handle mechanics abstractly or give the players a little bit of a mechanical "get out of jail free card" thing for when the character really wants something (AKA fate points or the like).  Or things that cut out some of the boring parts to get to the good stuff faster.  All of those, however, are really edge cases, that can work as well in one game as another, if the participants are OK with how they work.  For example, I like "Let it Ride" applied to a traditional game to solve a minor mechanical issue and help with GM pacing of the game.  I don't like it as something more rigid than that.

Quote from: estar;1001075I used to think that but I broaden that up a bit. For me point of the rules of a RPG that it is a tool to help me create an experience of the players living within a given setting as their characters. Sometime that mean realism but when it comes to something like a superhero campaign or a swords and sorcery swashbuckling campaign I am doing something different.

An experience is not living out the story. It about going someplace in some time period doing, hopefully, interesting things. As far I am concerned, narrative mechanics work against that whether it is being a cartoon bunny, trying to live in a world ruled by a mad computer, trying to get rich mining asteroids, winning the game of thrones, or trying steal the prints for the latest soviet fighter jet.

That's true. As WillInNewHaven also replied to me:

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1001089A long time ago, I went from "realistic" to "coherent and interesting." Other than that, this.

Well "realism" for me is a compass direction and it can vary a lot, from trying to be "as realistic" as I can, to just trying to have things make sense so they are as you say "coherent and [therefore possibly] interesting [to me]", because that's the type of game that interests me and "arbitrary and not making much sense [to me]" tends to be really uninteresting to me. (The actual game setting or focus of play might be contrived or silly or an excuse to play a game about certain types of violence, but I still want the aspects the game focuses on to make some degree of sense.)

For me, there's a clear sense that when there are game mechanics about a thing that reflect the nature of a thing, etc, then the game is about that thing (to the degree that it succeeds at doing that), whereas when the game mechanics of a thing in the game have little/nothing to do with the nature of that thing, then the game isn't much really about that thing, because it doesn't behave like that thing at all.

e.g. If the game situation is a gun fight between humans and no one is in armor, but the rules are such that no one can be taken out the first time they are hit, then the gameplay seems to me more like it's "about" something other than the situation it says it is about. I could only experience the situation it's supposed to be about if I (pretend I, or actually) don't know the rules work some other way, and even then, what the game provides is going to be weird.

So when a game's mechanics are all (or largely) about narrative rules/goals/style or other meta-level things, and not just for scenario selection but that's the core gameplay, then that's a game "about" making up stories. Which is ok as far as it goes, and sometimes that's the sort of thing I even do when I'm trying to run a really realistic campaign (even in a wargame campaign, choosing the scenario and its parameters is often to force a situation that I hope will be interesting). But it's an entirely different and (to me) vastly more interesting and satisfying thing when the gameplay is generating events and motivations and circumstances and outcomes all by itself because there is a coherent situation supported by rules that reflect things in a natural way, and players are engaging that.

Interesting. I also play games to experience situations, but contrary to you bros, I think certain non-trad games actually enhance the experience for me, in particular the genre-emulation ones and its laser focused mechanics. I don't care for "story" either.

I wish folks would talk about specific experiences with specific games...

"indie" and "story game" are very inexact terms, and the games that get labeled as one or both of those terms don't all work the same.

Consider that per the Ron Edwards definition of "indie" GURPS is an Indie game... I'd argue that when first published, OD&D was an Indie game. Over on storygames.com, both those games are included in the umbrella of story games... I'm guessing the folks talking about indie or story games in this thread though don't include either of those games...

Frank

I agree, broad vague statements are little use. Discuss actual, specific games.

Does "Castle Falkenstein" count as a storygame?

I wish I hadn't ignored it when it was first released, I read through it recently and love the idea.

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

I wish I hadn't ignored it when it was first released, I read through it recently and love the idea.

Yes and no.

Yes, it was doing 'narrative' things like journal keeping, predictive hands of cards being selected for actions and colourfully descriptive magic.

No, it had nothing to do with the GNS theory or The Forge, or 'indie games' or anything like that. It merely had ideas that were innovative before they became fashionable. One could cite the influence of 'storytelling games' as per White Wolf, which were at their peak of popularity when Falkenstein came out - but not in the definition of 'story game' as it is understood today..

"Storygame" is specific.