Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Janx]

And, now, these two points should get hooked together.

It also helps to sprinkle in qualifiers. Rather than say, "In an RPG, players do X..." aim for, "In an RPG, players typically do X..." Speak about what is common, but not what is always or never done - genre definitions based in absolutes often fail.

Oh, and figure out *why* you want a definition. What purpose does the definition serve? What *can't* you do without the definition?

That is certainly a valid question. Why does it matter what I consider an RPG to anybody else? Or vice versa.

I assume because it offends somebody's sensibilities that something is included or excluded.

But unless we're the well respected Gaming Organization , I don't think anything we decide here is going to have much weight

 

[Umbran]

Eyewitness accounts matter. And if anyone has the right to define the term Story-Games then it's the person who runs the forum Story-games.com.

Eyewitnesses, however, are notoriously open to bias. And while we can, as individuals, choose to consider someone's authority on a subject to help us estimate how likely they are to be correct, that authority does not substitute for them actually being correct.

If "storygame" is "a game produced by those people over there", then it is a marketing term, not a term for analysis.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Eyewitnesses, however, are notoriously open to bias. And while we can, as individuals, choose to consider someone's authority on a subject to help us estimate how likely they are to be correct, that authority does not substitute for them actually being correct.

They are also less open to bias when it's a text medium.

If "storygame" is "a game produced by those people over there", then it is a marketing term, not a term for analysis.

That certainly seems to be how a lot of those critical of storygames use the term.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it's true that most RPGs don't challenge just the PCs but also the players. .

I think this point is essential and it is a dividing line that causes a lot of confusion and debate when people are discussing investigative adventures (some people want to be challenged, some people want their character to be challenged and some want a mix of both).

Personally when it comes to investigations I lean on the GM challenging me the player, but like all people I don't fit neatly into that one box. I probably shift a bit between that and my character being challenged depending on the moment.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They are also less open to bias when it's a text medium.



That certainly seems to be how a lot of those critical of storygames use the term.

One thing we need to get used to in the RPG world is words have different meanings depending on context and who is using them. No one really gets to control the words. But definitions are about identifying all those uses and describing them (not picking one and favoring it).

I agree there are a lot of bad faith definitions of story games, but even those have use in that Story Game has that particular meaning when it is used by those folks who are hostile to the style. Obviously you wouldn't use that definition alone or give it primacy but you might mention it. Look at a word like Yankee. Outside the US it means someone from the US, inside the US, it means someone from the the north. In the North it sometimes means someone from New England, and in New England it can mean a person who traces their lineage to the mayflower. All of those definitions are valid but their context matters. In some of these cases Yankee isn't a good thing, it has a negative connotation. Accepting all these definitions doesn't mean accepting that anyone who can be described as a Yankee is worthy of ridicule, it just is an acknowledgement of particular uses.

As long as our definition is descriptive and not proscriptive this shouldn't be an issue. When people start using one of these definition to enforce a norm in gaming, that is when issues arise. So when someone starts doing things like saying: Yankee is a term of derision for people from the North, therefore anyone from the North deserves our scorn, that is clearly a bad faith, illogical argument trying to use semantics as a rhetorical bludgeoning instrument and enforce an idea. I think it is the same with these various definitions of Story Game, Simulation, Immersion, etc. In some quarters those will be bad things, and in other quarters they may be good things. Both might also have different definitions of each one.

 

[Umbran]

They are also less open to bias when it's a text medium.

I don't see how the medium matters. Eyewitnesses give their *personal* view of events - especially when discussing the whys and wherefores. That personal view is subject to emotional involvement and the faults of human perception and memory.

 

[Celebrim]

Rather than people (like the RPG Pundit or, for that matter yourself) who use it to define games they don't like.

That is what the term was created to cover. It has drifted since then. The only practical definition of a Storygame I'm aware of is "A game produced by those people over there."

Ok, we're pretty much done then.

I quite happen to like Story Games. I think they are great. I think it is wonderful innovation in the art and scope of gaming. My hat's off to those that developed them. I had thought we were trying to learn something about the design of games, and hone our language so that we could speak more clearly and more correctly than someone like Wick who is busy spouting nonsense like, "D&D is not an RPG". But apparently that's not your motivation. Your motivations is that you like the gobbledly-gook. You are trying to argue for useless and flimsy definitions because for some reason you think that not being able to speak about something with precision protects your thing from criticism, and you are so focused on that that you are completely unable to imagine that anyone else in the discussion doesn't have the same motivation.

Your fundamental assertion is that 'story game' has no meaning. That's its just a veiled insult. As such, you can't allow it to have meaning (because then the insult, as you perceive, might be pointed). Personally, I don't like terms that have no meaning. Words that have no meaning need to be tossed out, which is apparently your real desire, so what's the point of discussing this with you?

But somewhere along the line I find it really bizarre that Hillfolk - a game that uses the Drama Engine - is somehow definitively an RPG whereas MonsterHearts - which uses the Apocalypse World Engine - is somehow definitively a Story Game. I'm not a strict believer in 'System Matters' but neither is system wholly unimportant. The Apocalyse World Engine and the Drama Engine have very different traits and play out very differently in game. These systems are so different that to me it seems obvious that they belong to different catagories of games. Not as you would have it superior and inferior categories, not as something were we need to pretend the differences don't exist so that people don't get their feelings hurt, but as different sorts of games that might be equally enjoyable to some or not so appealing to others and all that be ok.

As for Hillfolk being "pretty obviously a storygame", not a bit of it. Until you called it one I hadn't seen anyone call it one. Hillfolk is certainly a Dramasystem. But where is the actual Story part of Hillfolk?

You are arguing that Drama System and Hillfolk is not only not designed to put story first, but doesn't produce one? Seriously?

Congratulations. You've just claimed that Monsterhearts, which claims on the cover, to be a Storygame (and is so far as I am aware universally accepted by those who use the term for things they actually play) isn't one. Disproof by counterexample.

John Wick asserts D&D isn't an RPG. Does that prove it isn't? Some people on this board are asserting that everything that isn't OD&D is not a true RPG. People can assert whatever they like. Absent actual definitions - particularly in the presence of definitions that seem as yours do to just indicate which team you belong to - people are liable to assert all sorts of erroneous things. At which point, this is nothing more than an alignment debate with someone that doesn't believe good and evil have definitions, so what's the point of labels beside identifying the colors of the hats. And so now I finally see why everyone is talking past each other.

And there goes the entire PBTA family. Although most of them, to be fair, aren't Storygames.

Agreed. Actually, none of them are story games.

As is the boardgame Descent?

I've never played it, but as far as I can tell, yes, yes it is. The fact that D&D is sometimes played as a grand version of something like the boardgame Descent is precisely the sort of thing that provoked Wicks rant about how D&D is not in its essence an RPG. Wick is like, "Everyone that isn't using low drama method acting at the table is not playing an RPG." and "If it has a weapons table, its' not an RPG because RPGs are about story." All of which struck me as silly except that I think the problem is that Wick's vocabulary is starved. Wick needs to say, "I prefer games that focus on story over process simulation to the extent that they totally deprecate purist for process simulation and don't feature it at all. Hense, I like Story Games more than RPGs." Wonderful. Let's discuss the features of story games and how to make them great play experiences. I'd love to add more types of games to my already broad gaming vocabulary.

Alternatively: Thou shall not be the best at everything. There's nothing wrong with assuming high baseline competence.

Like the laws of Thermodynamics, there are a lot of ways to phrase the concept.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh God. This all makes sense now. I was busy trying to figure out how people could write the sorts of things that they wrote, especially Wick, and now I get it.

As Wick is using the term, RPG is just a synonym for 'good'. D&D is 'bad', D&D has things I don't like, therefore 'D&D is not an RPG'. Apparently there are people ought there that have defined 'story game' as 'bad', so then something like "My Life with Monster is not an RPG (ei 'good'), it must be a Story Game (ei 'bad')" provokes comments like, "Oh No! It must be an RPG (ei 'good'). D&D is a board game! (ei 'bad')"

I finally understand this thread.

 

[Hussar]

Oh hell [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] that's always been true. Didn't you learn anything from the edition wars? You've just summed up the past five or six years perfectly.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh hell [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] that's always been true.

I'm a high function autistic. Sometimes things that should be obvious to me aren't. I honestly thought people - even Wick - were seeking to find an accurate definition using Socratic discourse in order to speak on the topic of game design and implementation with greater clarity. That they are not literally for me a stunning revolution. I physically gasped when I realized it and nearly fell out of my chair.

Sounds silly I suppose, but it's true.