Quote from: The Exploited.;981628I'm not sure I actively hate story telling elements in something like Fate. But I wouldn't be mad on collaborating or GM-less games at all. That would be a stretch too far. More because I like the traditional structure of a GM and players.

A good GM will be picking up on story elements from the players at any rate whether they know it or not. So, players will always have some input into how the story goes even though the GM will control it overall (or at least the flow of it).

I'm fine with Fate Points (in WFRP) or Bennies, etc. These technically can really change the outcome of a story and give the player quite a bit of control over their own fate. I like the way these add drama and can cut the players a break. Especially in low fantasy settings where players can drop like flies.

For mechanics like 'aspects' in Fate, I'm alright with those too, but only in regards to that specific system. It works pretty well when you have a good group who are not taking the piss. I think it allows for a lot of player creativity, but it can be abused. That said, the GM can always overrule you, so you have that as a back up.

In general, I prefer a more traditional system but don't always 'hate' on narrrative stuff.

I prefer more traditional system as well but I don't mind more narrative things at all. Allot of it more mechanical variations of things I do (and have done) anyway. It can be implemented in ways I don't like or overdone until it becomes intrusive but, overall, I think its fine.

Quote from: ffilz;981539Hmm, I hate only having one level of quotes...

As do I. Always good when the software takes care of it.

Quote from: ffilz;981539That would not be my definition, and honestly, my definition of story game would include all RPGs and probably more games...

What is your definition?

Quote from: ffilz;981539But I've always appreciated that story-games.com IS inclusive of old school D&D play. One poster I always follow is playing old school D&D (well, I think they use Lamentations of the Flame Princess). Probably not exactly the same way we played back in the 70s, but in much the same spirit. Now I know not all who frequent that site would include old school D&D in story games, but I've always felt the admins are friendly.

Much different than the impression I got when I looked at it a few years ago.

Quote from: ffilz;981539As to what Ron Edwards said in his brain damage, I read it as coming from his frustration with what World of Darkness and other very scripted/railroaded games did to the hobby. My impression was that he in fact was supportive of old school D&D (separately, there was the Fantasy Heartbreaker deal, but that was more about designers of games he labeled as such putting their heart into something that didn't offer enough new to do well enough in the marketplace to break even, and more the shame, the new ideas they did have in their game got lost as a result of being buried in this otherwise D&D ripoff). The publishing opportunities we have today make it much more possible to publish such a game and get enough attention to justify the investment in money and time. In any case, the brain damage post did a lot of damage to the Forge community and the games that came out of it.

Frank

Much different than the way I understood his writing and I found the Fantasy Heartbreaker ranting to be insulting in a very planned and calculated way.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

Exactly this, pure sandbox play completely resembles real life in this respect.

Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man and emulate their stories with episodes, arcs and such. And it was more important for us having cool stories and scenes with flair and drama than simply overcoming obstacles or simulating physical realities. And that carried over to RPGs.

I think the magic of the hobby is in how open it is to accommodate so many different styles and expressions. Stories, Minis, Hexmaps, Boards, Acting, Drama, Tongue-in-Cheek, Tactics, Beer & Pretzels, Comedy, etc. So many possibilities, and all work as long as people have fun.

Quote from: Itachi;981648Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man and emulate their stories with episodes, arcs and such. And it was more important for us having cool stories and scenes with flair and drama than simply overcoming obstacles or simulating physical realities. And that carried over to RPGs.

I think the magic of the hobby is in how open it is to accommodate so many different styles and expressions. Stories, Minis, Hexmaps, Boards, Acting, Drama, Tongue-in-Cheek, Tactics, Beer & Pretzels, Comedy, etc. So many possibilities, and all work as long as people have fun.

Well, I think pretty much all of us did "let's pretend" when we were kids.  However, I can acutely remember when me and a bunch of other kids would be running around our hood playing "Army" there would be inevitable disagreements about resolution of actions taken - "I got you!"  "no you didn't I got you first!" - and I would wish for a way to adjudicate those and when D&D came along I saw it as a way to pretend but with meaningful rules and structure.  I never wanted to BE RAMBO.  I always saw it as pretending to be "a soldier in battle" and I always saw that as different from wanting to be a character in a movie.

I've got news for you, Pollyanna.

But seriously, IMO people tend to exaggerate differences in an effort to get a point across. For example, many fans of trad games are comfortable with luck points, even grateful for them as a tool to smooth over their use of a deadly combat system. ("Why not use a less deadly system?" Simple--the deadly one is more fun.) Many are comfortable with--or at least don't worry about--the GM coming up with interesting new campaign events and complications, if otherwise there'd be nothing to do. I like eggplant parmigiana.

However abstraction and analysis of game characteristics at the mechanical and (for lack of a better term) cognitive level is valuable both as a way of improving your game and deciding whether to spend money and time on rules, methods, even game groups. That's why I object to efforts to blur, misunderstand, and misconstrue statements of taste.

As I've mentioned, I'm one of the least familiar with this whole controversial argument. I sat out most of the online community from ~'99-2009 or so and missed the Forge, etc. Here are some thoughts, which might be completely off base.

Quote from: Itachi;981648Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man

I think, if that had been the way that people had initially seen the division/divergence between game-focused* RPG-ing and story-focused RPG-ing, there would be less acrimony.  If people were simply saying, "well, for me the most important part is having a challenge set up by the MC (DM), who arbitrates it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying, "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend." I think people would be a lot more okay with saying, 'Okay, we're doing this thing for different reasons. Some people might want to do both, but mostly these are two divergent interests which should largely be able to live separate-but-acrimony-free lives.' It really looks to my novice perspective like this hate-fest between these camps has got to be a case of historic grievances.
*by which I mean RPGs as an outgrowth of wargaming, predominantly being an resource(including-information)-and-risk-allocation challenge (and even that definition I know I'm going to get flack for)

Of course, the historic grievances probably go back well before this Ron Edwards guy and the Forge etc. They seem really to be latecomers to this whole debate (even the Storyteller systems he's reacting to seem to be a second wave of story-focused innovations, after things like the Dragonlance adventures or 2e AD&D's Paladins & Princesses focus, depending on how much of a thing that ever really was). I don't know that it was as well defined as it has become (obviously people didn't start using the term 'story game' to describe their games until they needed to distinguish it from something, any more than people described their games as 'sandbox' until there was something else it could be), but it's older than my involvement in the game. I started in '83 (and only really got a grasp of what the game community looked like outside of my own groups in '88 or so when I discovered Usenet), however, even by then, there was a lot of talk about the 'right' way to play RPGs.

Not that people were always in one camp or another, nor ever change their minds. I remember hearing (perhaps Playing at the World?) of Gary saying something along the lines of, 'the only reason a DM needs dice is for something to do with his hands' and people reacting to it roughly like Dylan going electric.  

QuoteI think the magic of the hobby is in how open it is to accommodate so many different styles and expressions. Stories, Minis, Hexmaps, Boards, Acting, Drama, Tongue-in-Cheek, Tactics, Beer & Pretzels, Comedy, etc. So many possibilities, and all work as long as people have fun.

And yet we seem to do a wonderful job of finding ways to slice our niche hobby into sub-factions and declare the others anathema, particularly online. I know, others have said that their other hobbies and interests have online communities which are just as bad. I still find that amazing.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

Just so for me too. The idea of "story gaming" as it relates to RPGs reminds me of what Instagram is to food. It used to be people enjoyed eating amazing food, and if it was amazing enough, they even took a picture of it to demonstrate how good it tasted. Nowadays, people actively seek plates that look good for the picture, and just eat whatever looks best. The picture has become more important than the flavor.

Likewise, people all used to play RPGs to make choices and have adventures, and if a good story unfolded they'd share it later. Having a story to tell was a sign that the game was a good one. Storygaming, like Instagramming meals, skips the tasty part and jumps right to the status symbol (and of course that symbol becomes meaningless since it represents naught of substance).

So there is eating, and then there is photography, and they are two completely different things. The fact that both label their activity "dining" doesn't make those activities more than superficially -- even deceptively -- similar.

Quote from: Arminius;981654But seriously, IMO people tend to exaggerate differences in an effort to get a point across.

I think nearly all attempts at slicing up what we are doing (storygaming vs. not, sandbox vs. not, OSR vs. not, this system better than the other) are routinely exaggerated.

QuoteHowever abstraction and analysis of game characteristics at the mechanical and (for lack of a better term) cognitive level is valuable both as a way of improving your game and deciding whether to spend money and time on rules, methods, even game groups. That's why I object to efforts to blur, misunderstand, and misconstrue statements of taste.

Sure, and it's not like there aren't differences. You can't pretend that (as a divergent example) playing Monopoly with and without the free-parking-money houserule doesn't genuinely effect how the game plays out. And it is certainly worth analyzing those differences. It's just the amount of emphasis on those differences that goes on in online discussions. It's... amazing I guess is the right word, as I'm still genuinely amazed.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;981623And speaking for myself, creation of "story" is literally nowhere in my mind as any sort of goal when I'm playing D&D.  It doesn't even cross my mind, any more than it does when I climb out of bed in the morning and start my day.  A session of D&D is a series of choices, events, and resolutions and if there is a story created, it's pretty much the same as the story anyone creates when they tell somebody what they did yesterday (with more Bugbears.)  At no point during play do I pause to consider what might be "good for the story."  There is zero concern for any sort of traditional narrative arc.  No beginning, middle, and ending.  No epiphany.  No concern for whether or not my character is fulfilling any sort of dramatic potential.  Just a bunch of (hopefully fun) stuff that happens.

Exactly.

"Once upon a time there was a world.  People lived on it.  Some lived lives of quiet desparation, some became great heroes, some died young because they were stupid or unlucky, and Shmolo the Peasant Boy got killed by a runaway manure cart at age 13."

Quote from: Crimhthan;981639As do I. Always good when the software takes care of it.


What is your definition?

I really don't have much of a definition. I'm not sure my definition is really worth it, because as an expansive concept, it doesn't help understand why some folks hate old school and other folks hate "story games." Honestly, when it comes to trying to understand why someone doesn't like something, it would be better to be specific about what it is you don't like contrasted to what you don't like.

Here's a silly example: "I don't like GURPS because it only uses d6 and I want to use my collection of polyhedral dice." Honestly, whenever I'm playing a game that doesn't use the polyhedral dice, sometimes I yearn for a game that does, because I like all the shapes. Now it actually doesn't really make me want to never play a d6 only game... (and my reasons for not wanting to play GURPS really aren't about the dice...).

QuoteMuch different than the impression I got when I looked at it a few years ago.

I've always found story-games.com welcome as an entity to old school gaming discussion. At times it may seem unfriendly because there doesn't seem any current discussion, or the folks actively discussing seem to be dissing on old school gaming in some way. Having been following since close to the start of the site, I'm just basing on my overall experience. But then I have at least some interest in the discussion of the more narativist games and I'm sure that colors how I experience the discourse.

QuoteMuch different than the way I understood his writing and I found the Fantasy Heartbreaker ranting to be insulting in a very planned and calculated way.

I think Ron Edwards had some good ideas, but couldn't be bothered with trying to present them diplomatically. A lot of what he writes reads as coming out guns blazing, but reading through the lines, it can read differently. So yea, I get how the fantasy heart breaker stuff reads as insulting, and in a way it is, but I also took away that he DID respect the old school games and that most of his disrespect was aimed at things like Vampire...

As some have mentioned in the past day, I am intrigued by how some of the "story game" mechanics are just making more explicit something GMs were already doing back in the 70s. Now sometimes making something more explicit is a bad thing, either because it makes it too rigid (and RPGs were born because the game allowed for non-rigid play - rulings not rules and all that), or even because it calls too much attention. But from an analyzing why something is more fun or less fun, sometimes it's interesting to see a non-rigid procedure be made explicit so we can see what's actually going on.

Understanding things like "say yes or roll the dice" or Burning Wheel's "let it ride" give me ideas on how to run OD&D and Classic Traveller better. And one of these days, I'll find time to run Burning Wheel again.

I also get the distinction between games with a strong GM and those with a less strong or even no GM. And I definitely prefer strong GM games, but not all "story games" are weak or no GM games. Burning Wheel is very much a strong GM game. Even Dogs in the Vineyard (which I would play again) is a strong GM game, though I get how it might be of no interest to an old school gamer.

Frank

While the Forge and some of the people in the indie scene have written some crazy rants, I've no hate for narrative gaming or narrative elements in gaming.
While 75% of the time I'm more for trad games, I occasionally pick up indie/narrativist games.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;981666Sure, and it's not like there aren't differences. You can't pretend that (as a divergent example) playing Monopoly with and without the free-parking-money houserule doesn't genuinely effect how the game plays out. And it is certainly worth analyzing those differences. It's just the amount of emphasis on those differences that goes on in online discussions. It's... amazing I guess is the right word, as I'm still genuinely amazed.

The emphasis on it and the outright hostility in some cases is amazing.

Quote from: Itachi;981648Interesting. I'm also on the "let's create a cool story" side. I think that's because I came to the hobby from a strong Let's Pretend angle in childhood. We used to pretend being Rambo or He Man and emulate their stories with episodes, arcs and such. And it was more important for us having cool stories and scenes with flair and drama than simply overcoming obstacles or simulating physical realities. And that carried over to RPGs.

I'm mostly in the lets make a cool/fun story side. I like a degree of "world simulation" and prefer more traditional game mechanics, the GM/Player divide, etc But I do want create dramatic, exciting worlds that are like the fiction I (and my players enjoy) with characters that feel like people in those worlds. One of the big goals I game for is Escapism and part of that is playing in a world that's more cinematic, dramatic and fantastic that our reality where Stuff Happens to the PCs who are the stars of the game (but not necessarily the center of the world/setting)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;981662I think, if that had been the way that people had initially seen the division/divergence between game-focused* RPG-ing and story-focused RPG-ing, there would be less acrimony.  If people were simply saying, "well, for me the most important part is having a challenge set up by the MC (DM), who arbitrates it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying, "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend." I think people would be a lot more okay with saying, 'Okay, we're doing this thing for different reasons. Some people might want to do both, but mostly these are two divergent interests which should largely be able to live separate-but-acrimony-free lives.' It really looks to my novice perspective like this hate-fest between these camps has got to be a case of historic grievances.
*by which I mean RPGs as an outgrowth of wargaming, predominantly being an resource(including-information)-and-risk-allocation challenge (and even that definition I know I'm going to get flack for)

Regarding your "game-focused* RPG-ing" definition, no flack from me that is closer than most people get, I would just add in the exploration component.

Your two examples of "if people were saying" is interesting, because here is what I "hear". That is regardless of what they are saying this is what I am hearing.

"Well, for me the most important part is having the DM setup a sandbox* campaign and create a living world where things are happening all over the place, I (my party) get to choose anyone of dozens or hundreds of things we learn of and choose one or just strike out in any direction if the mood takes us and the DM will arbitrate it as objectively as possible, to see how successfully I can excel at it, based on my ability to think through the situation and make good decisions." and other people saying "well, for me the most important part is being involved in a great story of daring do. If I'm going to pretend to be an elf/cowboy/starship captain, it had better be a good job of playing pretend, oh my character needs to have all high stats, magic, luck points and any other advantages I can think of and you don't dare let me die or fail."

*Sandboxes have hooks that is to say a real sandbox is a living world and things are happening everywhere all the time. Players will hear rumors, see caravans going all, all kinds of things, they can choose any one of those things or do something else of their choosing, they can pursue something close by or far away, if they want to can go to the tavern drink up all their money, sell their possessions and keep drinking if they  want to do that. If anyone tells you that a sandbox doesn't have hooks, roll your eyes and ignore them.