No one has said there's anything wrong with BoL, not in this thread as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Arminius;981281Omega, 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.

Right. But from experience theres usually a faction that is very much out to trick people. The real intent is to subvert the other group and replace them with whatever fetish the infiltrating group is focused on. Once they get the other group to meet half way then they have their hooks in and start taking over.

Today your apple pie site is discussing apples. Tomorrow its discussing eggplant and oh those apples. Never heard of em. Probably another word for eggplant right? Or you'll see a site about apples. And on getting there its eggplant.

Id really love to say I havent seen this happen. It REALLY love to say I havent seen this happen more than once. People so pathetically in need of more of their fix that they have to destroy another group to get it by 'converting' them. Enjoy your eggplant...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;981240In 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!

1) Seems to me that who a PC is and what their abilities are, including their equipment and the situation, also matter. And in storygames, there are also instructions to care about the story quality, story concepts, whose narrative turn it is, and other things that are neither the PC nor the situation determine what happens next. When they take into account who the PC is or what the situation (supposedly) is, it tends to be from a perspective of what makes a good story the other story-conscious elements.

And that's what I find annoying when it starts to creep into a trad game, because I want things to happen for in-universe reasons, with no interference from "story" or "genre" notions. And I complain about it on the Interwebs because it seems to have already creeped into a lot of RPGs, the people who like it don't seem to get that/why it annoys some people, and I feel like if people don't keep complaining, it'll spread faster.

2) From the perspective I just mentioned, worrying about what to do with prisoners, civilians, and orc babies, can actually be interesting too. Who the PCs are, what their morality is, and whether they butcher children or not, etc, is a real practical thing in the game universe, and exists in trad RPGs, and can be interesting and challenging. You can decide to handwave it in one direction or another, but how would that be about narrative or storygaming? Seems to me I'd tend to call that "scope". Like, some wargames might decide to have counters and rules for prisoners and your own wounded and what you do with them, while others would either try to factor the effectiveness-reduction from such situations into the combat results tables abstractly (or pretend it doesn't exist).

You did touch on the storygaming difference though. In a trad game, prisoners might matter because they exist and do things, take time/energy and make noise however you deal with them, there are people who might come to despise you if you butcher them (including some of your friends/allies/patrons), and many other possible in-game-universe situations. The storygaming difference is the part where the GM/players make choices and cause things to exist and happen for reasons of theme or story (and a story game might also ignore prisoners if it's not interesting from a story-perspective - a lot of action fiction seems to do this, either ignoring what happens to fallen bodies, or making it highly important depending on what the author wants to happen next).

I'm with Voros and Jhkim on this one. Aside from the attitudes of some early proponents, I can't see what's the problem with "storygames" (which I understand to be a jargon for Forge games around here). The games per se are fine, even when some specifics are not to my liking. I don't like Polaris and find the phrase structure restrictive but so what? I also don't like railroads and more popular rpgs are full of it, and still I respect those who like it and think it has a place in the hobby.

What's next? Saying drama movies are crap because you guys only like popcorn action?

Quote from: Itachi;981314What's next? Saying drama movies are crap because you guys only like popcorn action?

That would be the Other Media forum.

Quote from: Itachi;981314...

What's next? Saying drama movies are crap because you guys only like popcorn action?

Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad. We don't prefer them. The vitriol comes from "the war" where sides were drawn and people tried to hijack the hobby and misled people about what Story Games are. Now that we clearly know what they are, it's no big deal. It's not about the games. It WAS about shitty people being shitty. These days more reasonable people have prevailed. Instead of fighting over what REAL ROLEPLAYING is, we can all make and play the games we want. We can even hang out at the same conventions and play each others' games (if we're so inclined)!

Quote from: trechriron;981316Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad.

Right. Not bad, just different... different than what I generally want when I want an RPG.
The apple vs. eggplant analogy works for me... I might like both, but not together and when I want one I don't want/expect to get the other instead.

Quote from: rgrove0172;980495Within the first couple of weeks of my joining the forum here I got involved in some heated debate regarding GM style. I dont want to bring any of that up again, Please God! But upon doing a lot of reading around the net since that time I have come to realize that there are a ton of gamers on either side of the fence upon which those threads were flaming. There are whole articles dedicated to the art of narrative elements, story gaming, railroading or whatever one wants to call it, just as there are those condemning it. Chalk it up to preference of course but... my question is where does the angst come from?

It would seem that its obviously just a different approach and as RPGs are played any of a thousand different ways you wouldnt think the arguments would be so staunch. Its not like we are talking politics or something? Where do you think the apparent hatred for story gaming by the pure sandbox guys comes from and for that matter, visa versa?

Going back to the question the OP posed.

For me it is really simple, people entering the hobby are being taught how to have less fun in a restrictive style of play that seriously limits player options, while they are being told IMO untruthfully that they have more options in a scripted story game railroad. Also IMO immersion is completely destroyed when the player tells the ref what is in the room. If the player can do that, then don't use a ref, just have players and no ref and the most dominant people "win".

One thing a ref does is provide equal opportunity for all players by having a neutral arbitrator that does not give one player an advantage over another by playing favorites, if you play favorites you are not a ref you are something else I don't have a word for. If the players get to take on roles filled normally by the ref, then the dominant ones are free to control the game at the expense of the less dominant. A ref can ask a less vocal player(s) what are you doing and bring that player(s) back into the loop. The ref provides opportunities for every player; however, every player is still responsible for stepping up and grabbing opportunity and making the most of it. Some people want to be wallflowers, that should not make them any less likely to die than anyone else. Being passive can get you killed.

Just for the record, I do think Story Games are bad, (friends don't let friends play Story Games) but I have no problem with you playing them exclusively if that floats your boat. Story Games are IMO not role-playing, they are acting, not that there is anything wrong with acting as you act out your predetermined role to reach the pre-determined conclusion. If you enjoy that, then go have fun.  I really do not have a problem with anyone playing anything they want to. I just think it is a shame that 99% of the rpg world has no idea the rich tapestry that a real old school living campaign game provides.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981333For me it is really simple, people entering the hobby are being taught how to have less fun in a restrictive style of play that seriously limits player options, while they are being told IMO untruthfully that they have more options in a scripted story game railroad.

I'm curious. What games exactly do this "scripted story game railroad" thing? Care to cite some titles?

Quote from: Itachi;981336I'm curious. What games exactly do this "scripted story game railroad" thing? Care to cite some titles?

Some Call of Cthulhu modules pop to mind.

Being a 'railroad' was never my issue with storygames, unless by 'railroad' people mean being pushed to foreground narrative concerns over PC interests... which is something I've experienced in 'trad' games as well (usually pushed by GMs rather than rules).

Yep, I asked because in my experience, popular/mainstream games have more railroad/low player-agency material then Forge-style games. In fact, I can't remember a single Forgite game that's a "scripted railroad" as Crimhthan says.

Quote from: trechriron;981316Once again for posterity... Most of us are not saying Story Games are bad. We don't prefer them. The vitriol comes from "the war" where sides were drawn and people tried to hijack the hobby and misled people about what Story Games are. Now that we clearly know what they are, it's no big deal. It's not about the games. It WAS about shitty people being shitty. These days more reasonable people have prevailed. Instead of fighting over what REAL ROLEPLAYING is, we can all make and play the games we want. We can even hang out at the same conventions and play each others' games (if we're so inclined)!

Oh, that's cool. And reasonable.

Quote from: Simlasa;981340Some Call of Cthulhu modules pop to mind.

Being a 'railroad' was never my issue with storygames, unless by 'railroad' people mean being pushed to foreground narrative concerns over PC interests... which is something I've experienced in 'trad' games as well (usually by GMs rather than rules).

Yep, I asked because in my experience, popular/mainstream games have more railroad/low player-agency material then Forge-style games. In fact, I can't remember a single Forgite game that's a "scripted railroad" as Crimhthan says.

Quote from: Crimhthan;981333Just for the record, I do think Story Games are bad, (friends don't let friends play Story Games) but I have no problem with you playing them exclusively if that floats your boat. Story Games are IMO not role-playing, they are acting, not that there is anything wrong with acting as you act out your predetermined role to reach the pre-determined conclusion. If you enjoy that, then go have fun.  I really do not have a problem with anyone playing anything they want to. I just think it is a shame that 99% of the rpg world has no idea the rich tapestry that a real old school living campaign game provides.

Hmm, color me confused - a bit...

When I think of Story Games, I don't think of scripted railroads...

I wonder how these conversations would go if people named names instead of using terms that don't have clear meanings, or may have multiple meanings...

These days I think of Story Games as being the types of games discussed over on http://www.story-games.com/forums/ and I'm with the folks that include old school D&D in the realm of what that community means by "story games"...

But I can see how some folks would label games that encourage (or at least the active play community encourages) railroad/scripted play. Games I put in this category would include Call of Cthulhu (based on module play - the rules themselves don't dictate railroads to my remembrance), the various World of Darkness games, and the Dragonlance modules.

Frank

Quote from: Itachi;981336I'm curious. What games exactly do this "scripted story game railroad" thing? Care to cite some titles?

It is the new school play style. Not as much the game as the way it is run. The less DIY and MIY the game is the more likely it is to be played new school and to lend itself to and encourage new school play. Games such as OD&D, Holmes, many of the clones based on those games (I am not going to list them all), Arduin, Gamma World, Traveller do not lend themselves naturally to new school play but encourage old school play, if you read and understand the basics that are spelled out in those games. A huge number of people say they don't railroad and then you read their self-reports of their game and right there in black and white, they document how they railroad. Most adventure modules are by their very nature railroads, but any ref that wants to can alter them and take the railroad out of it and the ref that are able to do that tend to do their own thing and not use adventure modules to begin with.

Quote from: ffilz;981344Hmm, color me confused - a bit...

When I think of Story Games, I don't think of scripted railroads...

I wonder how these conversations would go if people named names instead of using terms that don't have clear meanings, or may have multiple meanings...

These days I think of Story Games as being the types of games discussed over on http://www.story-games.com/forums/ and I'm with the folks that include old school D&D in the realm of what that community means by "story games"...

But I can see how some folks would label games that encourage (or at least the active play community encourages) railroad/scripted play. Games I put in this category would include Call of Cthulhu (based on module play - the rules themselves don't dictate railroads to my remembrance), the various World of Darkness games, and the Dragonlance modules.

Frank

IMO old school D&D is as far from a story game as it is possible to get. A story game is where the story exists before any play occurs and the player has a role to fill to get to a predetermined endpoint. An old school D&D game is where no story exists and their is no predetermined endpoint, you start with a sandbox and a min of a handful of hooks up to hundreds of hooks (the players can visit as many taverns as they want looking for the rumor or news that excites them or set out to someplace of their choosing and see what comes up), story is created as the players decide and act, the living campaign continues around them and interacts with them and the ref responds to the players decisions and actions and to the living campaign, the story exists and can be told once play ends and not until play ends.