Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[The Crimson Binome]

But, that's not the spectrum. You don't do storytelling games without role playing. At least, not when we're talking about RPG's. Role assumption is fundamental in all role playing games. If you're not taking on a role, you're not playing an RPG. That shouldn't be controversial.

Right. Everyone agrees on that, which is why it makes sense for RPG to be the umbrella term. The question is how to sub-divide them, so that you end up with useful categories. Segregating all of the games that contain storytelling elements into their own category is a logical way of doing so, from the perspective of anyone who wants to avoid playing those types of games.

A role playing game needs all three elements - role assumption, some sort of random mechanic for determining outcomes and a narrative that follows causal links. Without any of those three, I'd say you aren't really playing an RPG.

As a side note, I would disagree that you need a random element in order for it to be a game. Chess, for example, does not have any random elements. (Unless chess was debunked as a game earlier in this thread, and I just missed that by skipping to the end here.) You definitely need to play a role, though, and exist within a causal world.

So, no, roleplaying is not the other side of the spectrum from story gaming. There's a reason you still have a character in story games - the presumption is, you are going to act in accordance to the dictates of that character. Granted, in a story game you ALSO have degrees of authority over the game as a whole, but, you still have a character in front of you.

Storygaming is not a term which has yet been defined. As a game element, storytelling is the opposite of roleplaying, because it involves the player just deciding stuff without actually playing a role within the world - you're just telling what happens, because the player has assumed authorial agency within the narrative beyond that which is granted by the character.

D&D doesn't stop being a role playing game because I use Inspiration (a purely player resource) to affect some change in the game world.

Inspiration is not purely a player resource, though. It has meaning within the game world, in much the same way that a barbarian's limited number of rages per day has meaning within the game world. It's just kind of nebulous and hard to define.

The character doesn't decide to spend Inspiration to gain advantage in this particular situation, but the player should recognize when the character is inspired, and use it to represent that. Given that Inspiration is handed out by the DM in situations where it is appropriate, and the DM can easily veto inappropriate uses of Inspiration, I would say that it's working mostly as intended as an in-game resource.

The same is not necessarily true of Action Points (from various earlier d20 products), or Hero Points (from Pathfinder), or "bennies" (from whatever game would be silly enough to assign such a common name to a significant game mechanic; you might as well call them "steves" or "freds" for as silly as it sounds).

In many cases, these resources are only given when the character suffers by playing into its flaws, as though there is some sort of karmic connection between, for example, wasting money on alcohol and later succeeding on a difficult skill check.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Right. Everyone agrees on that, which is why it makes sense for RPG to be the umbrella term. The question is how to sub-divide them, so that you end up with useful categories. Segregating all of the games that contain storytelling elements into their own category is a logical way of doing so, from the perspective of anyone who wants to avoid playing those types of games.

Of course. This, of course, makes games such as AD&D 2e and the whole of the WoD Storygames. In fact I'm not sure what you've got left if you take out the games with story elements. Possibly OD&D.

As a side note, I would disagree that you need a random element in order for it to be a game. Chess, for example, does not have any random elements.

We're agreed here. And "Diceless RPGs" (technical term for RPGs with no randomisers) are definitely a thing including (amongst others) Amber, Nobilis, and a licensed Marvel game.

Storygaming is not a term which has yet been defined.

Objection! I've tried to throughout the thread - and most clearly right here. A game where the mechanics include a narrative structure and the games are planned to last for a limited number of sessions - in practice the games are generally based round the five act structure (it makes for better games than the three act structure).

As a game element, storytelling is the opposite of roleplaying, because it involves the player just deciding stuff without actually playing a role within the world

Nope. This is where the Storyteller System messed things up and poisoned the well a little. A good Storygame can have the players never leaving character to decide anything. For this I'm going to cite My Life With Master, Monsterhearts, and Montsegur 1244.

In Fiasco the PCs need to set the scenes. There is a case to be made that Fiasco is a Storytelling game without being an RPG. But MLWM and Monsterhearts both have fairly orthodox GMs, and Montsegur is on a pre-plotted railroad where you play your role to the bitter end and is still deep and challenging; you're just dealing with overwhelming forces.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Objection! I've tried to throughout the thread - and most clearly right here. A game where the mechanics include a narrative structure and the games are planned to last for a limited number of sessions - in practice the games are generally based round the five act structure (it makes for better games than the three act structure).

Sorry, that's what I get for jumping into a 40-page thread without reading it. It really does sound like an extreme deviation from anything like a traditional RPG, though. Like, I don't even have an opinion on it, because it's so far beyond what I understand an RPG to be.

Nope. This is where the Storyteller System messed things up and poisoned the well a little. A good Storygame can have the players never leaving character to decide anything. For this I'm going to cite My Life With Master, Monsterhearts, and Montsegur 1244.

Yeah, that's probably where my confusion came from. The Storyteller in the Storyteller System is the one who has authorial power to decide things, so I use the term "storytelling" to define authorial power that exists outside of actual in-character agency.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Of course. This, of course, makes games such as AD&D 2e and the whole of the WoD Storygames. In fact I'm not sure what you've got left if you take out the games with story elements. Possibly OD&D.

Nonsense, there are plenty of roleplaying games which feature zero storytelling elements. Unless you go out of your way to add some, AD&D or 3E included no storytelling mechanics by default. Palladium, by and large, also avoids granting authorial power to the players. I never encountered storytelling elements in Shadowrun (2E or 3E) until we purchased one of the supplements. And it should go without saying that GURPS is generally devoid of that sort of thing, as well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

i think we already had like four to five pages of debate on this thread about story/narrative/etc. I am pretty tapped on that subject.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Yeah, that's probably where my confusion came from. The Storyteller in the Storyteller System is the one who has authorial power to decide things, so I use the term "storytelling" to define authorial power that exists outside of actual in-character agency.

That's how I'd define it to. The degree to which a game is a storytelling game is the degree to which players have out of character authorial control. The extreme is collaborative writing, where all parties have authorial control, and which, contrary to an assertion above, can be done as a game. If there's another way it's used, I haven't seen it.

"Pawn stance" vs "actor stance" is another sometimes disputed term. For me it's just 3rd person vs 1st person play. If I think and act in terms of "I do this" rather than "my guy does this" that's actor rather than pawn.

There should be a sticky at the top of the forums with a definition of how we're going to use words like this on the board. Then we can spend our time arguing about RPGs rather than arguing about how we're going to argue about RPGs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nonsense, there are plenty of roleplaying games which feature zero storytelling elements. Unless you go out of your way to add some, AD&D or 3E included no storytelling mechanics by default. Palladium, by and large, also avoids granting authorial power to the players. I never encountered storytelling elements in Shadowrun (2E or 3E) until we purchased one of the supplements. And it should go without saying that GURPS is generally devoid of that sort of thing, as well.

A game with no storytelling mechanics would be one entirely lacking in cause and effect. A Storygame adds a story structure onto it.

And GURPS isn't devoid of storytelling elements even if you go beyond the cause-and-effect definition and into the scene framing. I'm pretty sure it actively has more storytelling elements than e.g. Vampire: The Masquerade. It has such things as the gizmo and luck advantages. White Wolf games are in no sense Storygames - indeed Storygames come out of a reaction against White Wolf games as not being able to deliver on their promises.

Sorry, that's what I get for jumping into a 40-page thread without reading it. It really does sound like an extreme deviation from anything like a traditional RPG, though. Like, I don't even have an opinion on it, because it's so far beyond what I understand an RPG to be.

If you were playing Monsterhearts (to take one example) you'd barely know the difference between it and a trad RPG unless you were the MC (GM) - and even then it's subtle. If you were playing Monstsegur 1244 you'd basically be playing freeform.

Yeah, that's probably where my confusion came from. The Storyteller in the Storyteller System is the one who has authorial power to decide things, so I use the term "storytelling" to define authorial power that exists outside of actual in-character agency.

Ah. It might help to know that Storygames have as one of their roots "What Storyteller games promise is great. It's just a pity they suck at delivering, and we should make games that can actually deliver without removing agency."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A game with no storytelling mechanics would be one entirely lacking in cause and effect.

Right, back to our mixed-up terms. In this sense, I meant there are many games which do not give non-character authorial agency to the players, rather than ones which lack internal causality. I can see that we're in agreement, in spirit if not in vocabulary.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Right, back to our mixed-up terms. In this sense, I meant there are many games which do not give non-character authorial agency to the players, rather than ones which lack internal causality. I can see that we're in agreement, in spirit if not in vocabulary.

There are indeed many such games. GURPS, however, is not one of these games. See the advantages Super Luck and Gizmo amongst others. The old Marvel Superheroes (I think) also uses abstract karma points to rewrite dice rolls. And there are Storygames that don't allow you to. It's a slightly different thing.

 

[Hussar]

BTW, Saelorn, Bennies is short for benefits, a fairly common idiomatic expression. It's not meant as a proper noun name.

But, you don't get to have it both ways. If Action Points are a story gaming element, you cannot then claim that 3e has no story gaming elements.