Well, it's good to see some things remain unchanged. Like people trying to define E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson's games as Storygames.
Taking one anecdote that springs to mind, Mike Mornard played a baby Balrog in both Gygax's and Arneson's campaigns. He then on one occasion, trying to break into a keep, stuck an asbestos hat on his head, and claimed to be a reporter for The Balrog Times to interview the evil overlord. And used his thumb as the flash. Did the Balrog Times exist before Mornard pulled that stunt? Nope. Were there reporters with flash photography in (I'm not sure whether it was Greyhawk or Blackmoor he pulled that stunt in - Mornard was the only person in both)? Nope. Was it entertaining and entirely within the spirit of the game which was, according to Mornard "We made up some




we thought would be fun"? Yes.
For that matter we can go back further. Arneson and
Braunstein. Arneson invented D&D on the back of players inventing things within the setting that weren't forseen by the GM.
Now. I'm happy to let you guys have the term "traditional RPG" as long as you're happy to let our side of the fence have Gygax, Arneson, and just about all of oD&D. Is this a deal?
So, yes, it seems you are used to having some storytelling elements mixed in with your RPGing.
Given that the key storytelling element is
Cause and Effect then yes we have. If you want to remove all storytelling elements from your roleplaying you're left with ... not a hell of a lot. I'm not sure how you are roleplaying without cause and effect.
The idea of making full-on storytelling games that are similar to RPGs, and even use many RPG elements, didn't spring up from nowhere. It's weird that some folks find this evolution in gaming troubling to discuss or even identify.
Indeed. Tabletop Roleplaying grew out of two roots. The first was tabletop wargaming. The second was a freeform LARP that tabletop wargamers were experimenting with and that was almost entirely made up of what you would call storytelling elements. Tabletop Roleplaying is about as pure as the English Language. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
The idea I find weird is that people are seeking to exclude that which has always been in tabletop roleplaying and to define it as other than one of the fundamentals tabletop roleplaying has been based on.
But the idea that the GM should be unbiased towards the players in determining backstory - ie the content of the fictional world which forms the context for the players' declarations of action for their PCs - I think is not widely accepted.
Indeed. If the PCs are
entirely reliant on the DM's descriptions that puts them effectively on the position of relying on a single human interpreter to explain the world to a pack of half a dozen people. Without context most actions are meaningless. And I find such entitled DMing that doesn't trust the players to establish anything about the world is anti-immersive for anything more complex than solving a puzzle dungeon and leads to disengagement from players and overwork and far less fun for the DM. (I speak as someone who DMs at least as much as I play).
Similarly, Gygax implies that, when a player is having his/her PC thief establish a guild, now is the time for the GM to introduce rival guilds and the like to spice things up for that player.
Of course.
As I said, I really can't remember ever having read a piece of GM advice that advocates authoring the backstory without regard to what the players might find interesting. I'd be interested if anyone can point to something that I've forgotten about, or not encountered.
I can't imagine why you would.
I'm scratching my head on this one, because there is a huge difference!
Player 1 is using character resources to affect the outcome for his character:
DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 1: I'm a mage, I cast levitate and float up to the window.
Player 2 is using player resources to affect the outcome for his character in a way his character couldn't:
DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 2: *checks character sheet, sees no rope climbing spikes etc* hmm, I need to get up there, ok I use a fate point - there's a hidden fire escape mechanism to the window which I now trigger. I climb up the fire escape.
While the result is equivalent, the means are far apart and some people strongly object to the second way.
It may not be fair that some characters get access to such easy means (magic!) and others don't, but that a topic for a different discussion.
I'm trying to think who's advocating that in ... any game. You might get away with it in Fiasco - but it's illegal in Fate. In Fate you need there to be a pre-existing aspect (e.g.
Hidden Fire Escapes Everywhere) before you can spend a Fate point to establish a detail like that.
And as I pointed out on ... another thread, the term Storygame was invented for games with a
story structure. Normally based round
the five act structure that's hardcoded in the rules. So the climax of My Life With Master is one of the poor minions deciding to challenge the master - and the rolling fight is act 4. In Fiasco the mapping to a five act structure is obvious. And very much hardcoded.
People objecting to Gygax and Arneson's D&D, Fate, Unisystem, or GURPS (none of which are Storygames but all at times allow narrative declaration by players) are inventing a completely different axis.