Because no one has actually shown the difference.
But we have. You simply don't accept them or fail to see them.
For instance, many of the story now games have an entire character and group creation process. Apocalypse World does it, Stonetop does it, Blades does it. You don't create your characters in isolation, you create them together, and then decide what brought them together and how they're connected and what is their place in the world.
D&D does not have this.
You then say "yeah, but you could do it if you wanted" but that misses the point. The point is that in the games listed above, you
must do it that way (or at least, you should per the direction of the book).
We are invested in it just fine. But that' still what the game is about.
I mean, the way you talk about it doesn't seem like you're that invested. You talk exuberantly about speaking in character to another player about stuff that is more flavor than meaningful, but when you've talked about your Blades game, it's pretty blase.
I don't know if this is because it's how you feel, or simply because you're trying to reinforce your view of the game through tone, or if there's some other reason.
How? What principles? You could be even correct, but I need specificity. Like what it is is supposed to happen you think is not happening?
Have you read the book? They're clearly listed there on page 182- 186.
@Manbearcat 's post #928 gets into some of it.
Others are:
- Don't Be a Weasel- this is about players not abusing the authority they've been given, particularly as it relates to choosing which action ratings to choose- they're supposed to choose what makes sense in the fiction. Yes, there may be overlap between Skirmish and Finesse if someone is throwing a stiletto at an enemy, but we know it's certainly not Sway.
- Take Responsibility- this is about the role of the players as "co-authors", that they are as responsible for how the game goes as the GM is regarding tone, style, and theme. You have to be an active participant.
- Build Your Character Through Play- character generation doesn't end. You are constantly meant to be establishing things about your character during play. Not just their skills and short term goals, but also their connections to the world around them, their hopes and their morals. All of this matters and all of it should be a part of play. No one should be a wandering, rootless loner.
I just don't understand what sort of details you want. Black Lamps were our rivals, and their leader was a personal enemy of one PC who was a former Black Lamp. They were unfriendly and sort of bullied us. So we stole a thing from Crows (one job) and planted it so that it seemed Lamps had taken it (another job) in attempt to make Crows hostile to the Lamps, so they'd had less time to harass us. It was a while ago, I don't remember all the details. In any case, it was just thing we the players came up with.
Something illuminating. Anything that includes enough information for us to look at it and examine it. Your sparse descriptions can indeed be about any game at all... so they're not going to tell us anything about Blades as a game. Same as if you were making similar statements about your D&D game, they'd not tell us anything about the process of play.
Why were the Lampblacks your enemy? Were you successful in getting the Crows to go after them? What was the result mechanically? Did you take a -1 with them? Did you take a +1 with the Crows? I mean, the Faction game is meant to be player facing... how did your crew stand with these other ones? Did you ever go to war with any of them?