Quote from: jhkim;981197This doesn't make any sense.

I agree that the play and outcome are not pre-ordained in a game. And, indeed, there is no pre-ordained play or outcomes in essentially all the story games that I play -- Fiasco, The Play's the Thing, Polaris, Microscope, Once Upon a Time, etc.  Usually, there is an even greater variety of outcomes than in a traditional RPG session. i.e. When I'm DMing my D&D5 game, I go into a session knowing roughly what the dungeon is and/or what opponents the PCs will be facing. They might win or lose, or negotiate an unexpected result - but I know that there isn't going to be a volcanic eruption in the middle of the fight. If I'm playing Polaris, then volcanic eruptions, solar eclipses, or all kinds of other shit can happen with no warning due to spontaneous escalation.

Hell, the same thing is true of kids playing pretend. When kids play pretend, they make stuff up. If you tell a bunch of kids playing pretend that really Hector is forcing everything to fit with his planned story, then they'll get pissed and tell Hector to play right.

Some game that under the storygames umbrella  seem more 'game like' than traditional rpgs as they're competitive to some degree, someone can be essentially the winner and some even effectively have scores.

Dumarest: "I'm still wondering why I'm supposed to care how strangers play games at their tables."

To care, as in to have a strong opinion about whether they are doing it right or wrong. I wonder that also. However, to care can also mean to be curious, interested, to seek new ideas. I would find a gamer who didn't care in that sense rather odd.

-------------------------------------------------------
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules

As jkim says I can think of few if any storygames with pre-ordained outcomes. Grey Ranks has a broadly defined outcome, the Polish partisans will lose because it is a historical game taking place at a level where it would be impossible for the young members of the Grey Ranks to change that historical fact.  

The problem with the continued discussion as generalizations is that it increasingly suggests that few of the critics of storygames have read them let alone played them. Concrete examples of games with the flaws discussed would be more effective.

Quote from: Voros;981229As jkim says I can think of few if any storygames with pre-ordained outcomes. Grey Ranks has a broadly defined outcome, the Polish partisans will lose because it is a historical game taking place at a level where it would be impossible for the young members of the Grey Ranks to change that historical fact.  

The problem with the continued discussion as generalizations is that it increasingly suggests that few of the critics of storygames have read them let alone played them. Concrete examples of games with the flaws discussed would be more effective.

Poison'd.

Thanks Jeff. I haven't played or read Poison'd, just read about it.

How pre-determined is the end of the characters in the game? It is like Fiasco in that most characters are highly likely to end badly, or is it more specific?

Would you say it is more pre-determined than the fact that due to the mechanics (and intent of the designers) most CoC adventures or campaigns will end in either madness or death?

What about Poison'd? I don't think much of it but that isn't because it's got a locked-in plot.

Dogs is the example with which I'm most familiar.

• GMing advice that calls for dramatic manipulation within and across scenarios
• Incentives to fail pitting player motivation against character
• "Say yes or roll the dice"--at best, non-advice; at worst, player empowerment at the expense of verisimilitude
• Abstract mechanics (arguably dissociated) that "shape the fiction" instead of simulating any kind of realistic dynamic
• Players are called on to police/referee their own character development (i.e., they can grow or reduce their dice as they like)

That's off the top of my head; there's at least one other example that I can't recall in detail.

But the problem with all this isn't that the game is horrible--somebody likes it--but the insistence by its fans that none of these characteristics really exist, or that they only formalized the practices of well-played traditional games, or that they had no effect on the sense of immersion or first-person in-character point of view. The nuttiness, sophistry, and fatuousness of storygame fans on the net is responsible for much of the backlash against the movement. (The rest is largely from the dumb, smarmy attacks on traditional games, peaking with grognards.txt and slander against a number of D&D fans.)

In a traditional rpg, what matters is what your character does; in a storygame, what matters is who your character is.

It's basically utilitarianism vs Oprah.

Let's put it this way. You know how in Fury there's that scene where Brad Pitt tries to make the scrawny dweeby guy shoot a Nazi PW? In a storygame, that would be the whole campaign. "It's a moral dilemma! Tell us how you feel! Yes, I just finished Philosophy 101 with the "starving men shipwrecked" story, how could you tell?"

This is why some people still hold a grudge against Gygax for putting orc babies in that module. Fuckin' storygamer!

Quote from: Arminius;981239But the problem with all this isn't that the game is horrible--somebody likes it--but the insistence by its fans that none of these characteristics really exist, or that they only formalized the practices of well-played traditional games, or that they had no effect on the sense of immersion or first-person in-character point of view.

In regards to Dogs, I agree with what you bullet pointed but see those as features not bugs. Again you're criticiszing an orange for not being an apple.

It's fine to say it's not your bag or you simply dislike the mechanic but it is pretty pointless to criticize something for not being what you expected, any game should be judged on how well it does what it sets out to do not what you think it should be doing.

In terms of a mechanics effect on immersion, I think that is completely subjective and an unlikely complaint from someone who hasn't been playing RPGs for years. We now take the mechanics of trad RPGs as not immersion breaking but for newbies I think all mechanics have that effect until you become use to them.

Read again.

It doesn't matter whether I think the game is objectively bad--although, I disagree with the idea that I shouldn't judge tastes. But let's stipulate that the quality of the game is irrelevant to the ill-will that's directed toward the storygame sub-hobby. I hate eggplant; that's not a good reason to bear a grudge against people who like eggplant.

But these days I pretty much discount anything coming from the vocal eggplant fans who have a history of claiming that eggplants are the same as apples, or that if I like apples, I must also like eggplants, or that the eggplant is what an apple should be, but fails at being. I'm indifferent to the eggplant itself as long as there isn't a group of dumb, dishonest, arrogant, and crazy people trying to trick me into eating one.

Quote from: Arminius;981243Read again.

It doesn't matter whether I think the game is objectively bad--although, I disagree with the idea that I shouldn't judge tastes.

I didn't say that you shouldn't judge tastes although I would suggest it is pointless to argue taste. To claim anything is 'objectively bad' is a particular disease of the internets and leads nowhere. Outside of science 'objectively' is a very abused term. It is those kind of rhetorical tropes that make so much discussion on the net run into semantic dead ends and personal attacks.

The Something Awful crowd obviously had a lot to do with the bad blood. I'm surprised at just how effective the trolling on both sides has been. But a lot of the people involved aren't the types to ignore trolls.

And the appeal to outrage has become a popular tactic to browbeat even those who have no interest in getting involved. Hence what happened recently to Mark Rein-Hagen on FB and what happened a while ago to Mark Truman Diaz because of his blog post. I continue to be surprised at how much people put up with Anna Krieder's transparent obsessiveness, hostility and powertripping.

I do feel a Peak Outrage has been reached and people are more skeptical and disinclined to indulge the pot-stirrers. It felt like the attempt to go after Zak on the WW videogame failed to gain traction except on TBP, which is hardly a gathering place for storygamers anyway.

I'm surprised at at how long grudges have been held but then with the cataloguing of the net almost anything said can be dug up for endless recrimination.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981064I suppose some dont mind playing a dumb shmuck who dies on his first trip away from home but I dont see the fun in it.

They probably didnt intend it to end that way. I know I sure never intended to lose various magic-users to any given hazard. Its the thrill of the unknown and the risk thats the draw. And the assumption that theres allways a chance to survive or avoid something. Be it through detection, tactics, whatever.

Theres a poison needle trap on the chest. The PCs or thief have a chance to find it. Failing that there might be a save vs poison and failing that someone might have an antidote handy.

Or theres a pit trap. Theres the chance to detect. The chance to trigger, and if triggered theres the assumption the DM isnt being a dick and made it essentially an insta-kill. You 'might' die. But its probably not a guaranteed death. There might even be a chance to make a DEX save or such.

Quote from: Arminius;981243But these days I pretty much discount anything coming from the vocal eggplant fans who have a history of claiming that eggplants are the same as apples, or that if I like apples, I must also like eggplants, or that the eggplant is what an apple should be, but fails at being. I'm indifferent to the eggplant itself as long as there isn't a group of dumb, dishonest, arrogant, and crazy people trying to trick me into eating one.

This is pretty much the crux of it and its the same damn rhetoric used to 'infiltrate' other venues.

Quote from: Voros;981237Thanks Jeff. I haven't played or read Poison'd, just read about it.

How pre-determined is the end of the characters in the game? It is like Fiasco in that most characters are highly likely to end badly, or is it more specific?

Would you say it is more pre-determined than the fact that due to the mechanics (and intent of the designers) most CoC adventures or campaigns will end in either madness or death?

I'd put it along the lines of Fiasco. The premise and general outcome are pretty narrow. Its more about how you get there. Slasher Flick has a broader nature but the general outcomes are somewhat more narrow, at least in the sense that most of the characters are very likely to be killed. Which isn't that different from more traditional horror games like CoC which share some general aspects ( such as more or less normal folks facing a power
evil).

Omega, thanks, although I should have written that the obnoxious behavior isn't really "trying to trick people". It's more like if we have a forum about apples, and eggplant enthusiasts constantly join up, wandering into conversations about apple pie recipes to encourage everyone to try baba ganoush instead. When they meet resistance, they then deploy all the above arguments, and claim to be victims of exclusion as well. This even goes on when the apple-enthusiasts try to meet them halfway and engage an analysis of how apples and eggplants are different, and why they aren't particularly interested in eggplants.

What's wrong w/ Barbarians of Lemuria system? It's rules light and the characters start off as pretty competent, but that's about it - it's a traditional game in every other way.