Storytelling Games

[Ariosto]

The difference is between "I am telling all of you a story because I am on this side of the table" and "We are all telling this story together."

No. That is certainly A difference between two approaches, but it is not THE difference I was describing.

Nor are they even bound together. The complete set of my two things and your two things is four different approaches.

 

[pawsplay]

No. That is certainly A difference between two approaches, but it is not THE difference I was describing.

Nor are they even bound together. The complete set of my two things and your two things is four different approaches.

Agreed. One axis is trope versus realistical results. The other axis would be narration versus meaningful choices. You could also add a third axis, collaborative resolution versus hiearchical resolution, and a fourth, automatic resolution versus freeform resolution.

 

[Barastrondo]

No. That is certainly A difference between two approaches, but it is not THE difference I was describing.

Right. What you're describing is not the difference between "story games' and "roleplaying games." It's the difference between "controlling GM" and "enabling GM."

Outside of a story game, it may take the form of something like the advice to DMs in the old Temple of Elemental Evil.

You should sharply limit the amount of gear and treasure they can bring to the village (as you will understand when you read the adventure). If your group of players has had exceptional luck, simply engineer a minor encounter or two along the way — light-fingered leprechauns, a thief or two, or perhaps some brigands — to rid them of a few of those cumbersome gems, coins and magical items.

Obviously, this isn't something with story in mind. Rather, it's the GM being controlling to get the logistics of a game with strong resource management play back in its settings. You see the same thing whenever there's GM advice to somehow arrange for a player to lose a magic item that's too powerful. Making sure that a "desired" outcome takes place no matter what the players would like is certainly not a story-related problem.

Nor are they even bound together. The complete set of my two things and your two things is four different approaches.

I agree. And that's why I strive against the idea that story games "have a predetermined ending in mind" for any given scene, much less the overall plot.

Edit: For clarification, this is why I'm kind of sensitive to it:

Let's assume two GM, A and B. (Aggro and Gutboy Barrelhouse if you prefer). GM Aggro loves the idea of narrative to the point of wanting to write stories in which the PCs are but puppets. All his stories have predetermined endings, and he strives to punish them if they deviate from his scripts. To Aggro, the game is to complete the story in his head and prove to his players how clever and creative he is.

GM Gutboy Barrelhouse imprinted on the Tomb of Horrors and Grimtooth's Traps in a bad way. He doesn't care about story at all, but he loves to "get" and worse, "outwit" his players. He likes arbitrary deathtraps with no reasonable clues for avoidance. In one room, drink from the decanter and you die because of the poison. In another room, don't drink from the decanter and you don't get the antidote to the odorless, colorless poison gas filling the room... and there are no clues to differentiate between the two. To Gutboy, the game is to rack up a high body count and prove to his players how clever and creative he is.

Both of these are pretty crummy GMs. However, I think it's more common to see assumptions that all story games play out like a game under Aggro than to see assumptions that all non-narrative games play out like a game under Gutboy Barrelhouse -- even though they're exactly the same kind of assumption, and with pretty much the same amount of accuracy.

I don't like those assumptions, even though I sort of see where they're coming from. Since storytelling as a goal for a game is a bit newer concept, it's more recent that you've seen a number of rookie GMs making Aggro mistakes. There was likely a higher spike of rookie GMs making Gutboy Barrelhouse mistakes back in the '70s and '80s.

But yeah, I absolutely agree that GM style and narrative-vs.-procedural style are two separate axes. I just don't think that "predetermined results" are an artifact of narrative style exclusively, or that they are going to show up in a narrative game just by definition. Predetermined starts to scenes, very likely. But as we all agree, there's a world of difference between pulling out a bunch of miniatures and running through a futile combat and just starting a scene by asking the players "So why are you in jail?"

 

[Janx]

Likewise, if the characters lose a fight and are captured, then it is not because the enemy was too powerful. The enemy was too powerful because the characters were meant to be captured.

Actually, one of my DMing advice topics is NEVER plan to capture the party. I don't even advocate capturing the party ever. It leads to PC disempowerment and escape attempts that need consideration.

The only exception I'd use is to capture the party because the encounter went south and your choice is capture or TPK. Then I'd pause, and figure out all the details the PCs will want for an escape attempt.

 

[Crothian]

Actually, one of my DMing advice topics is NEVER plan to capture the party. I don't even advocate capturing the party ever. It leads to PC disempowerment and escape attempts that need consideration.

Depends completely on the players. I've read about issues with this on the boards for years but it is one of those things that has never been a problem in my own game.

I think one of the problems though comes from lack of trust. the players don't trust the DM is doing it honest or that all those cool magic items they worked so hard to get will still be there.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

First off, storytelling games are generally (not always, but generally) a subset of RPGs so I don't think it's one or the other. From my experience, 'storytelling game' is not so much a strict, technically defined term applied to RPGs as much as it is a sort of loose category. Games I usually hear defined as 'storytelling' are Monsters and Other Childish Things, Blazing Rose, Trail of Chthulu and then depending on who you ask, Feng Shui, Spirit of the Century, Dogs in the Vineyard and anything put out by Luke Crane. They do have some common features, though, that are worth mentioning:

1) Minimal mechanical growth: most characters in 'storytelling games' don't experience a lot of solid mechanical increase - levels, stats, etc. There are a few bumps here and there, but it's nothing compared to D&D, GURPS, RIFTS, etc.

2) "Pass the Stick" mechanic - 'storytelling games' often have a core mechanic that structures how much input players have in the narrative rather than characters in the game world. In Shadowrun, I kick down the door in time to stop 'generic terrible event' from happening to my love interest only if my character has enough Strength. In Blazing Rose, I can do it because I as a player won the most recent trick (card-based system) and so I get to resolve the conflict.

3) Disregard for 'physics': This is sort of the natural outcome of (2). In order to have a cloak that deflects missiles in D&D, I have to find the specific magic Cloak of Missile Deflection. In Dogs in the Vineyard, my ratty old jacket can bounce bullets because I have the plot power to say it does. The next time, I might decide the shot tears a hole in the very same cloak hit in the same spot. In GURPS, I might need three or more separate skills to make a flipkick attack by planting my hands on the enemy's head, springing over him and kicking him in the base of the skull on my way down. In Feng Shui, not only do I not need any specific skills, I get bonuses to the attack for describing in detail the way it's executed.

Hope that helps.

I think all of the above mechanics are a good way to define "Storygames" as a subset of RPGs. I think the players having a bit of control over the world via game mechanics is a good indicator of a game that could be considered a bit of a "Storygame".

 

[Ariosto]

Right. What you're describing is not the difference between "story games' and "roleplaying games." It's the difference between "controlling GM" and "enabling GM."

Respectfully, once again, I beg to differ. More precisely, I wish to correct your misapprehension. This is a case of my knowing as a matter of fact what I do and do not have in mind -- the phenomenon I am actually describing.

There is no inherent presumption of a GM's existence at all!

 

[Ariosto]

My observation was that the question "What is the purpose of this?" can have very different answers in a story than in a world.

In a world, things can be effectively without "purpose"; they simply are, as products of causes and effects that have no consciousness, no volition, involved in them at all. Where there is consciousness, it can take up goals and perform actions with intent to accomplish some purpose -- but accomplishment does not follow automatically from intent.

So, considered as a being in a world, Assassin X could conceive the purpose of killing John Doe. Words to that effect could appear in the text of a story, but we must turn to the author's intent to determine why Assassin X appears in the story at all.

If the author's purpose is to have John Doe survive, then the assassination fails. It does not matter if "realistically" it "ought to" succeed, except to whatever extent the author chooses to adjust the fictional "reality" to assist suspension of disbelief.

So, why spend pages on a failed assassination attempt? The answer has something to do with creating (or at least attempting to create) a dramatic narrative.

 

[Ariosto]

The big problem from this perspective with the traditional RPG is that its concerns are primarily with verisimilitude. Although I use it advisedly, "simulation" seems an inescapable term. By whatever measure of "realism" applies, it is considered realistic that situation X could have result Y and so it is a possibility. The chance may be "unrealistically" small, but it is still possible.

There's only one chance in 8000 that the "Inconceivable!!" could happen, but then ... oops. There goes the story.

It's no problem, of course, if "the story" is simply whatever in the event happens. That's obviously not what we're discussing. The kind of story we're discussing is not the accidental, incidental, after-the-fact anecdote of real life but Story in the literary sense. A "story telling game" by its nature presumes that there is in the first place a story to be told.

There might in fact be several stories vying to be told, that competition -- whether among players or between players and game system -- providing the actual game structure.

The key here is that the prime determinant of outcomes is not some disinterested evaluation of, say, the physics of hot lava -- even of Fantasy Physics Hot Lava. Instead, the factors that matter are such things as whether John Doe is the Hero of the Story, and what the Story is about.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ariosto, wouldn't you agree that an RPG could simulate any framework? I.e., the framework does not have to follow the laws of any particular reality?

Wouldn't you further agree that all RPGs presuppose a story, in that there is a presupposition that game events will occur, creating a narrative?

I think, if you examine the game Hussar sampled, you will discover that, claims to the contrary aside, it is not so different from a more traditional RPG. Yes, the PCs are manipulating different values to manipulate what occurs in-game, and yes, the relationship between players and framework is permeable (but not necessarily more so than in a D&D game where the DM allows players to contribute to the background of the world).

IMHO, the difference is far more in degree than kind, and in where emphasis is placed (both by the players, and by the mechanics for conflict resolution). AFAICT, your statement that By whatever measure of "realism" applies, it is considered realistic that situation X could have result Y and so it is a possibility is as true in Sufficiently Advanced as it is in Dungeons & Dragons (for example). Perhaps more so, because in Sufficiently Advanced players have some (but not unlimited) access to fiat mechanics normally reserved for the GM, so that they, too, can help ensure that any potentially realistic outcome is possible.


RC