Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7718188" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I tend to agree about there being a distinct difference, but I do make finer distinctions. For example, I don't categorize Fate and Fiasco together, because Fate still has mechanics that define a character distinctly from a story, and most players still affect the world most directly through the actions of a single character. I tend to think of Role-Playing games in terms of "Generations", WRT Story Games:1st Gen: Games that do not acknowledge narrative causality/story concerns mechanically. Most mechanics are concrete (have direct representation in the fiction), those that are not tend to be abstract for the purpose of simplifying a complex system that would be difficult or tedious to calculate at table. Examples: Old-School D&D, GURPS, most Gumshoe games, tons of games from the 80's and 90's, Fudge straddled the line between 1st and 2nd gen, depending on how groups used Fudge Points (IME).2nd Gen: Games that have some mechanical recognition of story or narrative concerns, but still maintain a traditional "core" of resolution mechanics that are the "bread and butter" of the system. The most moderate versions of these represent 1st gen games with some kind of story motivator bolted-on (some kind of action, hero, or plot points or perhaps some kind of XP system for roleplaying a weakness). The more extreme sorta blend into third generation games, dropping almost all detail from what are otherwise concrete mechanics and relying more heavily on narrative justification and impetus. Examples: 4e (moderate), 5e (barely), any version or derivative of D&D with various add-ons like the Sweet 20 Experience System, Burning Wheel (slightly less moderate), Fate & MHRP (more extreme), Some Apocalypse Engine games (Dungeon World, Apocalypse World itself arguably).  3rd Gen: Games that tend to work without directly mechanically representing the fictional "physics" or "reality" and mechanically focus almost entirely on some level of narrative causality. There are many obscure examples from the Forge that verge on Story Games.  Examples: Some Apocalypse Engine games (Uncharted Worlds, Worlds in Peril, Fellowship), Fiasco, Capes (obscure and possibly a Story game), Archipelago. Story Games: Mechanics are almost entirely abstract from the fiction, AND(!) players are not attached to a particular character for their action within the fiction space. Examples: Once Upon a Time, Universalis (an early shot, but doesn't have mechanical closure for plot threads), Baron Munchausen(? -haven't actually played it), some improv and wiki games. First gen games tend to provoke a lot of fudging and/or rail-roading by GMs who really want to be running a second or third gen game. Second or third gen games tend to drive some hardcore folks nuts because they often feel at a loss to deal with mechanics that aren't actually "in" the fiction, or don't want to be authoring events from outside their character's actions. Many second gen games and even some third gen games aren't really good at "closing" plotlines, even if the mechanics reflect and awareness of them. You can see this with some weird corner-case mechanics (luck, some magic, hit-on-a-miss, come and get it) that do or don't drive folks nuts. Anyway, that's my current $.02 on the subject.</blockquote>

Verification