Quote from: Zalman;981664Just 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.

Perfect example of someone projecting negative traits onto others because they like something you don't. Based on exactly nothing as well I'd say.

Quote from: Zalman;981664Just 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.

Um... No. I did not buy this earlier today so I could post it on Instagram. I posted it on Instagram because it's Katsu Ramen and freaking awesome.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981866His original post ascribed it to games from "1970-ish" to 2006 ("the present" when the essay was written).

This is the thread we are referring to:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0

Quote from: Justin Alexander;981866In practice, exactly the opposite. Because narrative control is governed mechanically, it's impossible for a dominant personality to "always get his way" without literally bullying the other players into ignoring the rules. You might as well argue that dominant players in Monopoly always get to purchase all of the properties because they'll threaten to beat up any other player who refuses to let them do so.

For that matter, I've seen dominant personalities (read: assholes) dominate Traditional if they can intimate or manipulate the other players into a kowtowing to their wishes.

From the very beginnings back in 74' or so I recall playing sessions including comments like this from players...

"Oh, you know what would be cool? What if the Inn is really a beached old pirate ship and the retired captain is now the Inn Keeper!"

To which the GM might reply "Yeah, cool idea sure!" or maybe "Nah, neat idea though."

We didnt even know what a "story game" was but the idea of everyone having the potential for adding elements to the game at times didnt seem like heresy. At least some of these games mentioned have a mechanic for controllling it. Personally as GM I kind of resist players monkeying with my setting but dont take issue with them having a bit of narrative control over minor elements. (ie. the shop keeper is working late and will open even at the late hour, it begins to rain and helps cover their tracks, the barmaid happens to recognize one of the PCs from when she worked in a nearby town etc.)

The PCs are heroes afterall and throughout endless examples from fiction we find that good things happen to heroes - they are must lucky, fated or what have you. I think that sort of things adds to the experience of playing, in moderation. I dont hold it against anyone for feeling differently though, to either extreme.

Quote from: ffilz;981693I 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...

The problem with Ron's formulation around "heartbreakers" isn't that it's not presented diplomatically -- or that it's disrespectful, it's that it's a ridiculous and naive way of understanding game design.

He's frustrated that a bunch of people used D&D as a template for their games and that they follow the traditional model, instead of following his ideas about RPGs. This is a novel thing to be frustrated about given the relative commercial and critical success of many of these games and the ultimate failure of his ideas and his games.

Of course a lot of people who picked up on the nomenclature use the term "heartbreaker" in much less specific ways -- to describe any game they find derivative. In this way, it's very much like his GNS stuff -- functionally and intellectually incoherent, but great for snubbing other games and gamers.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Nexus;981900For that matter, I've seen dominant personalities (read: assholes) dominate Traditional if they can intimate or manipulate the other players into a kowtowing to their wishes.

Of course the solution is, don't play with assholes, not try to invent the asshole-proof system.

Quote from: CRKrueger;981905Of course the solution is, don't play with assholes, not try to invent the asshole-proof system.

Absolutely. It's the group your playing with, not the system that determines your enjoyment.

An arsehole is just as capable of dominating a 'narrative' RPG as any other.

Quote from: CRKrueger;981905Of course the solution is, don't play with assholes, not try to invent the asshole-proof system.

That's not the point, its that "storygames" aren't anymore prone to (and its not part and parcel its them that they are) being dominated by strong personalities than "traditional" games. Its a risk whenever human interact.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;981906Absolutely. It's the group your playing with, not the system that determines your enjoyment.

An arsehole is just as capable of dominating a 'narrative' RPG as any other.

Id have to disagree. In my experience Ive had some great games with assholes because.. well it was a good game, whereas a crappy game is just crappy no matter who you play with.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981917Id have to disagree. In my experience Ive had some great games with assholes because.. well it was a good game, whereas a crappy game is just crappy no matter who you play with.

But what constitutes a "crappy game" is also a very subjective opinion, and I've never had a great game with assholes. I choose who I play with with some selectivity on that basis, but I'd always try new games with players I like.

Quote from: Arminius;981773First of all, if you're looking to offend, congrats, you've done it.

Not looking to offend. Never was. I just don't care to have words put in my mouth. I appreciate you giving another go at communicating.

QuoteI do in fact think that story games are ones that can't be played by the rules and the designer's guidelines (say, in GMing guidelines) without an awareness of story-creation. You can play D&D--more or less, given the loose structure and the optional nature of so much of the content--in a way that emphasizes story, but you don't have to.

Well, that's sort of exactly what it seemed to me. But the immediate and obvious follow-up question is, why would anyone in their right mind ever choose to go with the one-trick pony? Can there really be nothing more to it than that? And if not, then doesn't that in itself go a long way to answering the OPs question? That some of what's said is simply truth, not vitriol? And the rest that is vitriol is a natural response to those evangelizing against variety? It seems like there really ought to be more to it, and that something more ought to be a better characterization of what story games are and do.

QuoteThere's no need for the GM and players to guide events in a manner that highlights dramatic conflict and away from anticlimactic courses. In fact if the GM does so, the players can reasonably criticize the use of "story logic". Not that they will--they might like it. But if DitV players are surprised and less than overjoyed at the GM's hammering on character issues until an eventual crisis occurs, they're playing wrong.

Here's the thing. I don't know what anticlimactic is. I understand English. I understand what climactic means in the context of a story. I understand what putting anti in front of a word does. I understand the context around which the term anticlimactic is used. I just don't know that anticlimactic actually refers to anything objective. Someone might say of a movie, "I felt that scene was anticlimactic," and I'll respond "Okay, so you didn't like it. But I did. It surprised me. It broke the rules. The story seemed to be building to such a shitty cheesy cliche moment, then bam, it went in another direction. It was frickin' awesome!" As it pertains to RPGs, I can point to an endless number of things that happen that elicit a difference of opinion. I'm not sure any of it is objective enough to attribute to a story structure to make the determination of whether it was in line with "story logic" or not. I just don't see it.

Or to put it another way, say we're in a game session of D&D. I'm dungeon master. We're going along, going along. Suddenly we come to a crucial point. Something to do with a dragon. What happens next? Well, for the referee in me, I hear out what the players hope to achieve and how they plan on doing it, and I adjudicate faithfully according to the rules. Repeat as necessary. And what does the story guy in me do? Yeah, I could ask "What would be best for the story" but I already know the answer: "I don't know." Nobody does. Some people only think they do. And besides, it's not really how it turns out that matters so much as how we get there. And oh my look, we just so happen to have a pretty decent set of rules that takes input from all the players as well as myself in collaboration and helps guide our collaborative effort to some resolution. Which, by the way, is a full metric fuck-tonne more story support than your typical so-called story game will give.

So it turns out the real plot twist is the story guy and the referee were the same guy all along. Because as I understand the RPG structure, the descriptive/narrative have impact on the game and mechanics; the game and mechanics have a descriptive/narrative justification. If everyone takes 1 damage per turn, that gives a pretty intense count-down type feeling and it will influence the PCs towards a strong sense of urgency. Mechanic --> Narrative. But, you're right, a lot of players will cry foul if I'm just pulling some bull crap to make the story more interesting. It isn't in the rules. I can't just do random shit like that. It needs justification. A strange-looking mist is poisonous and causes 1 damage per turn to any creature within the area who breathes or has exposed flesh. Narrative --> Mechanics. Without the mechanical effect, sure, players can play make-believe and go all community theatre and pretend to be all pissy pants, but it doesn't have the same visceral effect of watching in a very real way your fictional character's life tic-toc away.

Is this then what distinguishes a story game from a traditional one? The belief that you can only work towards one "creative agenda" at a time; that they are in a way mutually exclusive? No. That wouldn't make sense. Plenty of people who believe that who are on the "anti-story" side. If you ask me, it's a pretty dismal coin to be on either side of. So maybe that answers the OP's question. Maybe "the two sides" are just grumpy because they're not really having as much fun as they claim or as much fun as theory tells them they should be, and they are looking for someone other than themselves and the things they believe to blame. Filthy story-gamers, poisong my players minds with their wacky millennial notions!

QuoteIn short, I'm not the first one to say this, but storygames may enshrine practices that could be used used in almost any RPG. That doesn't mean all RPGs are story games, just that there's a variety of philosophies of play.

Right. I get that. My D&D game would certainly be a lot more sci-fi if I started porting over items from the Star Wars RPG. Here's the thing, though. I'd be a lot more inclined to buy into this view if story games had innovated these practices. I haven't been gaming quite as long as you. But I'd already had a lot of years under my belt before Ron Edwards wrote Sorcerer. I'd played with a lot of different people. I played and ran games at cons. I read the odd issue of dragon magazine. And I swear, I've yet to see a single story game technique that I didn't first see used to play D&D. I've always just assumed that's where they got the ideas from. Same places I got them from. So who's aping who? To the OP's question, I know I've personally been annoyed by story game evangelists who insist AD&D doesn't have the technology to do story well. What I want to say is bitch please, you ain't never had an original thought in yo' life.

QuoteI--honestly--don't think D&D was written as a story creation game,

I think you're probably right. Then again, I doubt the guy who sold George Washington Carver his peanuts envisioned most of the 300 uses for them, either. It's almost as if the peanut is especially versatile and GWC was just plain better than the rest of us when it came to utilizing peanuts. But for some reason it's taboo in the RPG community to make the exact same observations--that some games are just deliver more than others, in some cases able to do everything those other games can do and then some, and some GMs are just better than the rest (rather than holding equal opinions) and can really make the RPGs they run shine. There's no vitriol over peanut oil. Maybe the answer to the OPs question is that there's no room for honesty in gamer culture so instead passive-aggressivism builds to the point of ludicrous infighting.

QuoteAt the same time, war games and the rpgs that grew from them have a low tolerance for contrivance. The culture is much more "what if?" and "you are there" than "let's have a good story". Again, that's how I read White Box and AD&D back in the 70s,

I agree with you 100% here. Forget RPGs. I fucking can't stand contrivance, even in the context of reading a story or watching a movie. I'll roll my eyes every time.

Now I WILL say "Let's have a good story." Absolutely. But the question that inevitably follows is, "Okay. How?"

And that's what is answered by the choice of RPG. Not what or why. What the goal is or why we're playing is going to be personal to each group. Each player in the group may in fact have a different what or why in mind. Why's can be anything. "Because fuck you, that's why" is a perfectly legitimate answer. And yet I don't recall that being on the allowable list of creative agendas. I don't see anyone insisting there are "Because fuck you, that's why" games and the attendant debates of whether or not they fit under the umbrella of RPGs.

How's, on the other hand, are testable. Did this procedure or this set of rules help me get what I wanted out of the experience? Yes or no? Two people, playing the exact same game with the exact same play goal in mind might give different answers. It would be ludicrous to think the one who said "No" should stick to playing with the rules because they are alleged to have been designed with his play goal in mind. Or to stop playing a game that is fun because it is deigned to have a different play goal than his. And so maybe this answers the OP's question. Because it just doesn't make sense to define or categorize games according to their ostensible play goals and the people who buy that theory hook line and sinker are bound to clash with people who've experienced a very different reality.

Quoteand although it's possible I was bringing something external to the texts, I think it's more likely that a close reading will support the conclusion that more had to be added and subtracted to get "story creation" than to get "world simulation". It's just that the population at large, and the Red Box generation, had cultural training that made it easier and more attractive to perform those adjustments.

Here's the thing. To me, a good story needs a certain level of world simulation. Maybe it doesn't have to be absolute. But it needs a lot of it. Enough so the story doesn't feel contrived. Enough so the audience can see, given the characters, motivation, and circumstance, how the conclusion is actually a logical one. I feel the rules already being 80% of the way there re: world simulation, from the perspective of someone with my tastes and demands in story, the heavy lifting is already done. With the reasonable detail the rules provide in terms of how these things play out and a monster manual with 100+ monsters, I am provided with great content to populate the world and a means by which to anticipate how things will play out. All I need to do is think two moves ahead in my initial set-up, then just let it play out. To me, that's less of a leap than bridging that last 20% to total world simulation.

When I look up Orc and I read this in the description, "If the orcs are not in their lair there is a 20% chance they will be escorting a train of 1-6 carts and 10-60 slave bearers bringing supplies and loot to their chief or to a stronger orc tribe. The carts will hold goods worth from 10 to 1,000 gold pieces, and each slave will bear goods worth from 5 to 30 gold pieces. If such a train is indicated, double the number of leaders and assistants, add 10 normal orcs for each cart in the train, and a subchief with 5-30 guards will always be in charge" it's hard not to imagine the story possibilities by simply staying true to this world simulation.

So maybe this answers the OP's question--by remaining cloistered in their own "game styles" they have no idea what they're missing out on and remain convinced that "the other side" has nothing of value to add, leaving each to believe they see clear how their stuff would enhance the other guy's game that they are dumbfounded at how foolish and ignorant people can be.

Quote from: rgrove0172;981902From the very beginnings back in 74' or so I recall playing sessions including comments like this from players...

"Oh, you know what would be cool? What if the Inn is really a beached old pirate ship and the retired captain is now the Inn Keeper!"

To which the GM might reply "Yeah, cool idea sure!" or maybe "Nah, neat idea though."

We didnt even know what a "story game" was but the idea of everyone having the potential for adding elements to the game at times didnt seem like heresy. At least some of these games mentioned have a mechanic for controllling it.

Do does OD&D. The mechanic in OD&D and most RPGs is the DM who decides if that idea is plausible or even possible in the setting.

QuoteThe PCs are heroes afterall and throughout endless examples from fiction we find that good things happen to heroes - they are must lucky, fated or what have you. I think that sort of things adds to the experience of playing, in moderation. I dont hold it against anyone for feeling differently though, to either extreme.

It adds to the feeling that the world runs on story logic rather than on a self-consistent world logic. Whether one finds that to be good or bad is a matter of what sort of setting one enjoys.

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.

I then said:

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

Because I agreed with Zevious Zoquis.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;981790For interpretations of 'real life' that assume a mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe, I suppose.

I am struggling to make sense of your comment. First because it is not on topic with what Zevious Zoquis and I were talking about. Although, I suppose that it would be remotely possible for a quasi "sandbox to be "mechanistic, providence-free, ultimately purposeless universe" but that would not be a real sandbox and IMO would not be much fun for the ref to run or for the player to play.