Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6415678" data-attributes="member: 87792">The gobbeldygook is either me explainign unclearly or your failure to read, and your unwillingness to accept counter-examples.  My motivation is that your definitions simply aren't true and you keep to them despite counter-examples.  This is complete nonsense.  I've been demonstrating that your definitions fit two categories - ones for which there are counter-examples and ones which are meaningless.And this is strictly false.  I have given story-gaming two separate meanings.  One of which is a game designed to be short in run time and not open ended and quite deliberately so, and based round a story structure.  More of that below.Look <a href="http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/images/3496/100540.jpg" target="_blank">at the cover of Monsterhearts</a>.  You might find it bizarre that it calls itself a story game.  But all that shows is that either (a) Avery Mcaldando is misrepresenting their game, (b) Your definitions are incorrect or (c) Monsterhearts is subtler than it looks.  I'm going with B and C.And using the original definition of Storygame, as I was, with the finite story, Monsterhearts is one.  And not because you run off the end of the XP track.  It's either a superb or not very good game to analyse because there are a dozen or so factors that obfuscate this.The problem is that you are miscategorising.  Hillfolk calls itself what it is.  A Dramasystem.  And it was definitely inspired by Story Games.  System does matter.  But there is a huge difference between drama and a tightly crafted story.  At the top level very few Storygames aren't RPGs.  They are just one type of RPG.  oD&D is another.And this is where your definitions are incoherent and irrelevant.  A game of golf produces a story.  There is no game that does not - and it's hard to think of a human activity that doesn't.  What Hillfolk is designed to do is not put story first, but to put drama first.  It's designed for conflicting PC interaction.  This is not, strictly speaking, necessary for a story.  And it doesn't help frame a complete one.  That's why the engine is called the Dramasystem.If we look at Fiasco (as a very clear storygame), the thing is written round a <a href="http://www.crazytownblog.com/crazytown/2010/02/getting-your-acts-together.html" target="_blank">five act structure</a>.   Exposition: The setup.  Rising Action: Pre-tilt.  Climax: The Tilt.  Falling Action: Post-Tilt. Resolution: Endgame.This mapping could not IMO be any clearer or more obvious.My Life With Master also has a defined structure in the same way.  When one PC decides to attack The Master.  That's the climax.  And that triggers the start of Act 4.If we look at Monsterhearts, things are not as obvious.  But they are there.  Act 2 runs long (as it should in a five act structure IMO, but that's me playing with lit crit).  And each of our screwed up kids is on their own separate storyline for a season.  But it has a defined climax that brings up the season end.  That's when someone manages to get their fifth advance.  At that point each PC can take one growing up move.  Which is a (normally positive) climax of their story.  They get to get over themselves in some way - or even spiral further.  And it changes their nature as a character (sometimes literally).  And after the climax, as in MLWM, the end is not far away.You'll note that this is something you may do in Apocalypse World (change Playbooks) - but in Monsterhearts all the season advances fundamentally alter the PC, and they bring about the endgame.  It's a looser connection than in MLWM or (especially) Fiasco, but it's there.I could go into detail about other games - but I think that that's enough to make the point.  (And no, the five act structure isn't essential - it's just a good one (and much better than the three)).Dramasystem on the other hand doesn't do this.  Not even close.  It might happen in Hillfolk.  There's no denying that.  It might also happen in D&D.  Hillfolk, however, has not been designed round a story structure.  It's been designed round dramatic tension (and IMO treats dramatic tension in roleplaying games the way Michael Bay treats action scenes in movies).  There's no built in climax or endgame and certainly no specific climax that flows straight from the rules.  It calls itself what it is - a Dramasystem.  And focusses exclusively on drama.I've been saying throughout that the colour of the hats is a common definition.  And providing another one - and getting counters back that involve adding a story structure to a game by means of a module rather than designing the whole game round it - this makes about as much sense as giving all the PCs in a game of D&D first level commoner stats and putting them effectively through Montsegur 1244.  That's adding story-structure to a prior game and being left with a complete mess.But some of them cause confusion.</blockquote>

Verification