It can be but is often used far too vaguely. How can AW and 1001 Nights both be 'storygames'?

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1001687Yes 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..

I don't think being a storygame requires some tie to GNS or the Forge. James Wyatt's Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchasen is a storygame and has no ties to either.

From my experience the most common problem with "story games" is the fact that the mechanics of the game are not directly associated with what your character can do. D&D makes sense since you see Fireball listed on the sheet and know that your character can case a fireball spell.

But if we're talking about, say, Fate, then having the aspect "Fire Wizard" on your sheet doesn't tell the player what their character can actually do within the game world as a fire wizard.

There is a really good article on this over at the Alexandrian

Fate isn't a storygame. It has OOC mechanics and narrative mechanics but is not like Fiasco or 1001 Nights.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1001767"Storygame" is specific.

How is is specific? Who defines what game is a storygame?

Not very many of the terms we use are 100% specific.  There's no solid wall of differentiation between Indie, story, traditional rpg...there are games that straddle the line between.  For me, a game that has significant OOC mechanics and mechanics aimed specifically at creating a certain narrative structure is already in the realm of what I think of as a storygame and is a thing I see as distinct from the type of rpg experience I am looking for.  YMMV but I think many of us who see ourselves as "old school"/traditional rpg guys have that feeling.  It's not specifically connected to anything any one person has defined - I don't give a crap what Edwards or any of the forgists say the definition is.  I make my own definitions...

Wouldn't it be more correct to say "non-traditional" games then? Because for people who actual know and play the kindof games you're pointing to here, there's a big difference between each of the styles you're amalgamating together.

None of it is specific.  But you have to start somewhere when exploring the question.  If you want it to be more specific, make it more specific, in whatever way seems good to you.

Quote from: Itachi;1001811Wouldn't it be more correct to say "non-traditional" games then? Because for people who actual know and play the kindof games you're pointing to here, there's a big difference between each of the styles you're amalgamating together.

Non-traditional game seems more accurate and doesn't draw such a hard line between rpg and not-rpg between games that share many of the same qualities and nature just interpreted and used differently.

Love what you love, but if you are curious about a game, or have tried it and couldn't make it quite work, play it with some people who really enjoy it. You may still come away knowing it isn't for you, but you'll understand how it works and perhaps why others might like it. Or maybe you'll see why it is actually pretty cool, who knows.

I am fascinated that there are people who think the term "storygame" is either specific or "understood" today in any any particular sense.

Quote from: Itachi;1001811Wouldn't it be more correct to say "non-traditional" games then? Because for people who actual know and play the kindof games you're pointing to here, there's a big difference between each of the styles you're amalgamating together.

From my perspective it doesn't matter.  I just respond to these topics, I don't start them.  I pretty much get where the OP is coming from so I don't need much more specificity...the differences between the games I'm amalgamating don't seem that big to me.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;1001805Not very many of the terms we use are 100% specific.  There's no solid wall of differentiation between Indie, story, traditional rpg...there are games that straddle the line between.  For me, a game that has significant OOC mechanics and mechanics aimed specifically at creating a certain narrative structure is already in the realm of what I think of as a storygame and is a thing I see as distinct from the type of rpg experience I am looking for.  YMMV but I think many of us who see ourselves as "old school"/traditional rpg guys have that feeling.  It's not specifically connected to anything any one person has defined - I don't give a crap what Edwards or any of the forgists say the definition is.  I make my own definitions...

So do you call Ghostbusters, Toon and Paranoia 'storygames'? They all have OOC mechanics, etc.

Quote from: Voros;1001992So do you call Ghostbusters, Toon and Paranoia 'storygames'? They all have OOC mechanics, etc.

Yea, this is why we need to talk about specific games. Otherwise we are just babbling that there are games out there we don't like or don't understand. But what point is there to the conversation if we're talking in such generalities that no one knows what we're really talking about.

And how can we actually answer the original poster if we don't know what games he was having trouble understanding? Maybe he would like one of them if he could understand, or maybe he could at least understand the game and say, yea, I wouldn't like that because of XYZ.

Frank

You were not put on earth to "get" these games, Mr. Burton.