Storytelling Games

[Barastrondo]

Simply role-playing does that just fine! It worked in the "Braunsteins", and it worked in Blackmoor, and it's just as effective playing LBB D&D today. There's not a bit of warrant there for any puffery about "a ground-breaking new experience" that "gives you unparalleled story-telling options" or yadda yadda.

The whole point of calling something a "story-telling" game is to emphasize that it produces something different from what a traditional RPG produces. If the latter is "story", it's still not the right kind of Story. It certainly won't pass muster with Forge-y folks, and a lot of Rpg.net will at the very least make some ado about fetching out their scented handkerchiefs.

Can I ask what sort of threads at RPG.net bear this out? I go there a lot. What you're describing... does not really match my experience with the place. I've never seen a thread there where anyone connected a story game with the idea that the ending is predetermined.

(Also, "scented handkerchiefs?" Though I respect the Eric's Grandma policy, let's be honest, this is a place with a grandma policy, and RPG.net is the birthplace of Kill**** Soul****er. Those guys are really not like what you think they might be like.)

I'm really not trying to be incendiary here. It's just that what you're describing looks very much like the stereotype born of lack of experience, and not like my own experiences. If there's some actual meat behind the stereotype, I'm curious what games or threads reinforce it. It's sort of like saying "All old-school D&D takes place entirely in the dungeon"; there are plenty of threads and games out there that prove otherwise, and not much that proves the stereotype true, so if someone was saying "all old-school D&D takes place entirely in the dungeon," I'd kind of want to see what founded that person's opinion as well. Otherwise it just looks like repeating misinformation, and how does that do the hobby any good?

To the extent that you define "not S", you are (literally by definition!) defining "S". It's like carving a sculpture: just start with a piece of rock, and chip away whatever doesn't look like a sculpture.

Who defines storytelling games as "not roleplaying games"? I don't. I think it's pretty obvious they're just a specialized subset, and "not a particular approach to roleplaying games." Again, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this claim if you'd point me to where you've seen it in actual play. (Preferably by people who aren't biased against story games or RPG.net/Forge culture, if you would; while I'm sure they're lovely people, their descriptions of "what goes on over there" tend to be subjective, and frequently inaccurate.)

That extent certainly does not have to be (and indeed should not be, for anything resembling a game) anywhere near as complete and particular as, say, "The Tower of the Elephant" in published form. It does need to be concrete enough to warrant the distinction from the "stuff happens" product of less literary games, or else what is the point? "It's way better because it's just the same" is very silly.

What about "It provides a different experience?" I think that'd be reason enough to provide a new term to describe the new set of goals and how you reach them. Using words like "totally" is hyperbole, yes, but hey, marketing. I can't think of the number of fantasy settings I've seen that drew on hyperbole to stress some pretty minimal differences, regardless of RPG/story game "divide."

We're talking about two very different domains of what the player decides, and how, and why.

Yes, but the player is Bob. Describing it as "Conan thinks of himself as a fictional character" is misrepresenting the authorial decision. Bob thinks of Conan as a fictional character, and makes the decisions. Conan still doesn't, but he obeys Bob's decisions even if Bob's deciding that he wants to tell a story in Stygia and therefore Conan will develop a reason to go there instead of acting on an existing reason. That reason Conan develops will be in-character still.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, but the player is Bob. Describing it as "Conan thinks of himself as a fictional character" is misrepresenting the authorial decision. Bob thinks of Conan as a fictional character, and makes the decisions. Conan still doesn't, but he obeys Bob's decisions even if Bob's deciding that he wants to tell a story in Stygia and therefore Conan will develop a reason to go there instead of acting on an existing reason. That reason Conan develops will be in-character still.

One should note that this is true in D&D as well. If Bob wants to see the sights in Keoland, you can be sure that he will find a way to make his character go there in-character.


RC

 

[Barastrondo]

One should note that this is true in D&D as well. If Bob wants to see the sights in Keoland, you can be sure that he will find a way to make his character go there in-character.

Absolutely. I don't think there's any such thing as an RPG that isn't at least a little bit story game. Even those that use mechanical lifepaths to generate character background instead of leaving that up to you create a story, of a sort, as the player names NPCs and explains how events are related.

 

[ExploderWizard]

RPG: A story is formed as the byproduct of play.

Story game: Telling a collaborative story is the object of play.

There is a difference and both can be enjoyable experiences for the participants.

 

[LostSoul]

What if you use role-playing to create a story? The story is the by-product of the role-play, but creating a story is your goal.

 

[maddman75]

The whole point of calling something a "story-telling" game is to emphasize that it produces something different from what a traditional RPG produces. If the latter is "story", it's still not the right kind of Story. It certainly won't pass muster with Forge-y folks, and a lot of Rpg.net will at the very least make some ado about fetching out their scented handkerchiefs.

Okay, exactly what games are you talked about? I play a lot of indie stuff and tend toward the narrative side of things, and this does not bear true to me. The point of trying to make the story resulting from play into a good story is that it make the game more fun.

RPG: A story is formed as the byproduct of play.

Story game: Telling a collaborative story is the object of play.

There is a difference and both can be enjoyable experiences for the participants.

No, this is completely wrong and as I keep stating, insulting. You don't get to say that the part of the hobby that I happen to enjoy isn't real gaming. If you want to say that there's a subset of RPGs called story-gaming and another subset called war-gaming, then we're cool. But you don't get to kick me out of the hobby.

What if you use role-playing to create a story? The story is the by-product of the role-play, but creating a story is your goal.

Exactly. This right here is exactly what my group does.

Roleplaying is what we do.
Getting a good story from that roleplay is something we think is a lot of fun.

 

[Barastrondo]

What if you use role-playing to create a story? The story is the by-product of the role-play, but creating a story is your goal.

That's honestly what I think most "story games" are: a hybrid. I see far more effort from people who don't like story games to establish them as something that is "not a role-playing game" than effort from people who do.

"Storytelling game" is a sub-class of game, but not at odds with "RPG" or, for that matter, "card game." I think the only proper way to represent how they interact is a Venn diagram. They really do overlap.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, this is completely wrong and as I keep stating, insulting. You don't get to say that the part of the hobby that I happen to enjoy isn't real gaming. If you want to say that there's a subset of RPGs called story-gaming and another subset called war-gaming, then we're cool. But you don't get to kick me out of the hobby.


Roleplaying is what we do.
Getting a good story from that roleplay is something we think is a lot of fun.

I never said that what you enjoy isn't real gaming. It doesn't matter if you are playing a story game or a traditional rpg. If the choices a player makes are meaningful with regard to the outcome of the experience you have a game, period.

If the choices made are not meaningful and the outcome is pre-determined then you do not have a game.

Kick yourself out if it makes you feel comfortable but I won't do it for you.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is EW, you are defining RPG and Storygame as two separate and distinct entities. That' where people get a tad miffed and might feel like you are telling them that they aren't playing a "real" game.

I tend to be a big tent kind of guy, myself.

IMO, Role-Playing Game is one of those terms that is best defined by its center, not by its edges. Forest is another word like this. How do you define "forest"? Trees per square meter? Is height a factor? Where does the forest end, exactly?

Who knows? And, at the end of the day, who cares? I know a forest when I'm standing in one. I know that when I'm standing in a cornfield, I'm not standing in a forest. There's all sorts of shades in between where it might be forest and it might not be.

To me, that's what defines RPG. Is the purpose of the game to assume a role of some sort? Are there some sort of task resolution mechanics in place (whether codified or not)? Is there a sense that play is persistent, or at least can be persistent between sittings?*

If the answer is yes to those three, then it's good enough for me.


*Persistence is something that is rarely brought up in these discussions and it really should be. One of the largest differences between an RPG and any other game out there is the fact that your role persists beyond the resolution of a given situation. Almost no other game does that. While you could certainly role play in Monopoly, there is no concept of persistence there. Actually, persistence would run contrary to the rules of the game.

The fact that the game can continue pretty much indefinitely is a primary feature of RPG's, IMO.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem is EW, you are defining RPG and Storygame as two separate and distinct entities. That' where people get a tad miffed and might feel like you are telling them that they aren't playing a "real" game.

If people feel like they are not playing a real game it certainly isn't because I told them so and if it is why in the heck do I matter so much.

The fact that the game can continue pretty much indefinitely is a primary feature of RPG's, IMO.

A game without an end or defined endgame conditions can continue pretty much indefinitely whether it be an rpg, story game, or any other type.