Amber Is Not a Storygame

[finarvyn]

Yeah, none of that is even remotely accurate.

Could you elaborate?

At the risk of dumping gasoline on a raging fire, I'm trying to get an understanding on what constitutes a "story game", at least in the minds of ADRP players, but your comment doesn't help me at all. A few details would be useful.

[gleichman]

Could you elaborate?

At the risk of dumping gasoline on a raging fire, I'm trying to get an understanding on what constitutes a "story game", at least in the minds of ADRP players, but your comment doesn't help me at all. A few details would be useful.

TristramEvans rarely has details, just groundless opinion that he overstates. For example I'm rather certain that yes indeed Theatrix was published after Amber (93 vs 91 according to wiki) so at least some of what I posted was quite true.

I'm rather confident he didn't even begin to understand the rest of my post. But hey, what he doesn't understand must be false.

But if you want the modern version of what a storygame is (as opposed to the history of storygames in general)- you'd be better served to ask here. This site is clueless.

[TristramEvans]

Could you elaborate?

At the risk of dumping gasoline on a raging fire, I'm trying to get an understanding on what constitutes a "story game", at least in the minds of ADRP players, but your comment doesn't help me at all. A few details would be useful.

It's easiest to understand by viewing the game from the PoV of a player: in a traditional rpg, the player makes choices in the game, takes actions, and in general views the game world from the PoV of thier character. They are literally 'playing a role'. In a storygames, the player views their character from a third-person perspective, seeing them as a character in a fiction (hence story), and makes decisions from the PoV of the co-author of that characters story.

Note that it is possible to play most classic RPGs either way. What distinguishes a storygames is that the rules enforce this PoV. This most commonly manifests in a system by redistributing authority usually reserved for the GM to all players.

Note that in making the distinction I am not, unlike some posters, applying a value judgement. Whichever type of game appeals to a person is none of my nevermind. But I find the distinction valuable as we're essentially talking about two very different and contradictory experiences in play.

[TristramEvans]

TristramEvans rarely has details, just groundless opinion that he overstates. For example I'm rather certain that yes indeed Theatrix was published after Amber (93 vs 91 according to wiki) so at least some of what I posted was quite true.

I'm rather confident he didn't even begin to understand the rest of my post. But hey, what he doesn't understand must be false.

But if you want the modern version of what a storygame is (as opposed to the history of storygames in general)- you'd be better served to ask here. This site is clueless.

"Rarely has details" my ass. Anyone who posts here regularly knows what a crock of smeg that statement is. Engaging in a little projection are we? Or should I post links to the numerous times you showed yourself incapable of ever backing up or unwilling to own up to a single one of your ridiculously ignorant assertions that you blurt out when you periodically stop by here to troll for attention?

[Panjumanju]

It's easiest to understand by viewing the game from the PoV of a player: in a traditional rpg, the player makes choices in the game, takes actions, and in general views the game world from the PoV of thier character. They are literally 'playing a role'. In a storygames, the player views their character from a third-person perspective, seeing them as a character in a fiction (hence story), and makes decisions from the PoV of the co-author of that characters story.

Note that it is possible to play most classic RPGs either way. What distinguishes a storygames is that the rules enforce this PoV. This most commonly manifests in a system by redistributing authority usually reserved for the GM to all players.

This is also my understanding of storygames, but I think you've expressed it a lot better than I could have.

Jdurall's points have been exceedingly interesting. However, I'm not willing to accept Amber Diceless as a storygame - not because of any value judgement or social stigma concerning storygames - but because I have never played a storygame that has felt anything like playing Amber...they feel like completely different animals.

If Erick Wujcik was pioneering new territory and breaking conceptions and expanding boundaries...well, he was, obviously - but to my mind not to the same effect nor in the same direction as storygaming. As far as I can see, Erick Wujcik did not pave the way for storygames - he went madly off in his own brilliant direction.

But what Gleichman says about the storygame attitude being on the GM side, that makes sense to me.

Compared to modern storygames the most important evolution in design is that Amber is a storygame aimed mostly at the GM, while many of the modern versions give much of the power to the players. Otherwise the goals are nearly identical unless one gets into splitting hairs.

I think this is a very interesting observation. I'm not quite sure how to reconcile it with my perspective on Amber, but it's a solid point.

//Panjumanju

[Mistwell]

Damn.

I posted this over at EW in response to someone implying D&D was a storygame:

D&D isn't a storygame.  It's an RPG, which is a different thing than a storygame.

Now after a session is complete, you can then write up what happened into a story.  But as it is happening, it's not happening as a story, it's happening as a role playing game.  The DM controls the world, the players control the PCs, and the players decide what they want to do, free of the structure or requirements of a story.

The fact that you can tell a story about what happened, once it's done, does not make it a storygame.  I can tell a story about what happens in this thread - that doesn't make this thread a storygame either.

If you want to play a storygame, there are plenty of them out there.  D&D isn't one of them.

And got this:

Thanks for this helpful post! Now I know that I've been playing D&D wrong all these years, and also that Robin Laws and Luke Crane were mistaken when they labelled their games "RPGs".

Really, I need to explain why D&D isn't a storygame, and that's a controversial statement warranting that level of snark?

[Panjumanju]

Really, I need to explain why D&D isn't a storygame, and that's a controversial statement warranting that level of snark?

Little did you suspect that all this time, Warhammer and...Chess...are also storygames.

But seriously, this person may interpret "storygame" as a style of play, like "sandbox", because if D&D is a storygame then suddenly my weekly Go game needs hero points.

//Panjumanju

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, most of the online discussions about what is and isn't a storygame tends to end up with someone arguing a definition that applies equally to any given edition of D&D. I've never seen it made so blatant as that, however.

Just remember, you were probably talking to a 15 year old virgin ;p

[Panjumanju]

Just remember, you were probably talking to a 15 year old virgin ;p

All joking aside, I suspect there is a serious age divide going on between the average denizen of therpgsite and the rabble of rpg.net. My suspicion is that we represent an older crowd, on average.

//Panjumanju

[The Yann Waters]

All joking aside, I suspect there is a serious age divide going on between the average denizen of therpgsite and the rabble of rpg.net. My suspicion is that we represent an older crowd, on average.

There have been several polls about age over at RPGnet. This was the latest, I think.

[Benoist]

Yeah see TYW's poll makes me think the age difference thing between this site and RPGnet is bogus.

[vytzka]

Yeah, most of the online discussions about what is and isn't a storygame tends to end up with someone arguing a definition that applies equally to any given edition of D&D. I've never seen it made so blatant as that, however.

Accidentally including D&D (especially 4e, which pretty much lives off metagame mechanics) is a potential problem for any coherent definition of storygames, yes.

[RPGPundit]

Storygame? Roleplaying game? WHO GIVES A FUCK?!? They're games!!! You like the games you like. Who the fuck do ANY of you think you are to look down on how somebody else chooses to game. You think any amount of sanctimonious blogging will stop games you don't like from being made, sold, and played? SPOILER ALERT: It won't, because nothing fucking will. EVER!

Talking about Swine has led to me being able to successfully run a major gaming Forum that continues to grow while others are shrinking, and that creates influence in the hobby as a whole.
It has allowed me to publish successful RPGs, which has an influence on the hobby as a whole.
It has led to me being known as one of the top reviewers in the hobby, and those reviews influence the hobby as a whole.
It has made demarcation lines that stopped other people from being able to make radical changes to the hobby and then pretend they weren't; it has exposed some of these same people saying very denigrating things about the hobby and speaking about it with contempt when they thought the "unwashed masses" wouldn't be looking.  It contributed to the closing-down of the first and most important Swine-forum where the core ideology of this movement to take over RPGs was being "forged" (pardon the pun). That has affected the hobby, it has led to a general perspective that storygames are passe.
Finally, its gotten me work as a consultant on 5e D&D, where it will be my kind of thinking, and not theirs, that will help influence the next generation of D&D gamers, affecting the future hobby as a whole.

That's what my using the word "Swine" has done.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

My apologies for seeming ungraceful.

The comment was more tongue-in-cheek than pedantic, but I am afraid I came across poorly.

I certainly do not mean to put words into Erick's mouth at all. Which is why I prefaced any statements about his possible views with "I have little doubt that..." to indicate that it's my own belief.

I just find that the central premise of this discussion boils down to:

   Is Amber a storygame?
I hate storygames!
I love Amber!
Therefore, Amber can not be a storygame.

I find that argument mildly ridiculous.

That argument would definitely be ridiculous. It would be as ridiculous as:
I don't know what a storygame is.
It sounds like "a game that is sort of telling a story".
When I play Amber it sort of tells a story!
Therefore, Amber must be a storygame!

Fortunately, I'm not making your argument up there; and I hope you're not making my argument either.  But just in case you are, here's my real reasoning:

This group have created something very specific they call Storygames
It works in certain ways.
Amber does not work in those ways.
Therefore, Amber is not a storygame.

Another argument people make is "storygames are rules-lite and kind of weird" (even though not all storygames are rules-lite) "and Amber is rules-lite and kind of weird, so that MUST make Amber a storygame!"
Which is nonsense.  At that point you might as well be saying that Shakespeare had a beard, and the guy who wrote Synnibar has a goatee, therefore Raven McKraken is the greatest master of the English language who ever lived.

A storygame must do specific things: in its rules, it makes certain priorities (most fundamentally, that the crafting of a "story", as defined by the concept of "addressing a theme", takes precedence over the actual playing of a game).  Amber, in its rules as written, does NOT do any of those things.  Most fundamentally, in its rules as written, the crafting of a story does NOT take precedence over the RPG-priority of making a game that feels like a living world and having players feel like their characters are real people.
Beyond that, it fails to tick the 'storygame' boxes on countless other points: it has a strong GM while storygames require a very weak one, it has no mechanics by which PLAYERS (and not their characters) can influence the setting or future events while storygames regularly do, it isn't full of pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-artistic pretentiousness while many storygames are, etc.

 

I talked to Erick a lot about game design theory, and he was passionate about challenging assumptions about what a game was, or could be. He frequently abandoned rules for games midway through sessions, and ran largely-improvisational story-based games at the drop of a hat. He loved giving narrative control over to players, encouraging it through aspects like Stuff, contributions, etc. Which seem inherently storygamey.

So, I'm just baffled at the insistence that Amber can not be a storygame when, by most indications, it is the trailblazing, earliest, epitome of one.

I'm not going to question what you suggest about your memories of your experiences with Erick; of course here we have to be very careful and be like Ananda (the Buddha's scribe) in saying "I have heard the Buddha say.." rather than "The Buddha said..".

But in my own case, in my many conversations with him, I had always heard him argue in favor of doing very creative things; I certainly heard him suggest experimenting with the idea of Roleplaying to the point that its not really roleplaying anymore, where there's no GM or where there's no rules at all, but I ALSO very often heard him speak in favor of a very strong GM-role, and it seems to me that when he was going for the RPG-experience itself rather than some kind of wild experimentation, he was quite willing to throw the rules out the window but not to give up the idea of a Strong GM running the show, IF there's a GM at all.  
And I never heard him say "you know? RPGs should be changed into something where the whole point is to address a narrative theme and not to have a realistic world".  That I never heard him say.

I also talked to him about the short article he wrote for the Forge; and in his own Erick Wujcik way, he made it clear to me that he thought the storygamers were a bunch of wankers (of course, that's my word, not his; but the implication was that he thought they were trying way too hard to seem intellectual, and were trying to take themselves way too seriously with ideas that were too limiting for his tastes).

RPGPundit

[silva]

I don't think that anyone who actually plays storygames seriously thinks of amber as a storygame. I would imagine that when people say this what they are really doing is highlighting the ridiculousness and hypocrisies of pundit's crusade, whereby games that use certain buzzwords or techniques are condemned as non-RPGs... unless they are written by his friends or commercial partners.

This.