FactsAreUseless posted:

No, storygames are built around "collaborative creation and experience of a story," roleplaying games are about exploring and surviving in a fully-realized, immersive world.

FactsAreUseless posted:

Actually, they're not arbitrary, and they're important: RPGs are games in which you play a role, storygames are games in which you take a role in a story. It's not complicated.

FactsAreUseless posted:

RPG: I am Hrothgar, King of Axes, and because of this, I will make the game happen.

Storygame: You are Hrothgar, King of Axes, and here is what happens to you.

True gamer: I prefer the former.

OtspIII posted:

All this, but unironically.

Kind of.

Like, "I'm playing this to simulate running into fun challenges and steal a bunch of gold" is fundamentally a different thing than "I'm playing this to tell a story about a guy who has a bunch of adventures", but pretty much all RPGs/Storygames support and encourage both, and the fun of RPGs comes largely from constantly transitioning between the two modes mid-play. Different games emphasize and support each of the two to different degrees, and even more than that different players favor one or the other mode.

Basically, the distinction between RPGs and Storygames is real, but it lives more in players than games, and tends to be pretty fluid even then.

Effectronica posted:

it isn't, and a lot of games go wrong in thinking that there's a difference between the two, imo

OtspIII posted:

You don't see a difference between problem-solving and story-telling? I don't think they're at odds with each other, but I don't think they're the same thing.

Effectronica posted:

The vast majority of stories, and 99.9% of stories with plots, are about solving problems to get rewards. A dungeoncrawl is very highly procedural and probably wouldn't make good TV, but it's still ultimately a story about how a set of characters go and do something that is created by the process of solving these problems and getting those rewards. I guess you could have purely faceless pieces you move around and which you don't invest in as yours, but that's not something that's really been seen since before OD&D in RPGs, and is largely relegated to certain kinds of board game, many of which still have some player investment in their little characters. But a lot of people tend to assume that there is a gap, because we think of stories largely in terms of dramas. But, hell, if your characters have any kind of interaction or you crack jokes, it's basically an episode of Law and Order set in a dungeon.

EDIT: This is actually not a "grog" thing, really, because it's something just about every major RPG-theory group (this is mostly publishers/fanbases) is guilty of. We value certain kinds of stories over others and we let these prejudices influence how we think about RPGs and the stories we create with them.

OtspIII posted:

I don't know, I feel like there's a pretty fundamental experiential difference between when I'm intentionally leading my character down a doomed path in Fiasco and when I'm trying to figure out how to trick an ogre into telling me where the dragon's hoard is. Stories definitely come out of both of the two situations, and the stories might even be kind of similar if poo poo goes bad with the ogre, but in one the story is my focus and in the other it's a by-product.

Like, there's stories and then there's stuff happening. A story is when you take stuff that happened and then organize it to speak to some larger issue. A person talking to another person and then getting beaten up isn't a story, while a person who thinks they're smarter than they really are who tries to trick a guy into a scam and gets their rear end beat over it is.

Or maybe that is what you call a story. This is kind of a frustrating thing to talk about because every circle I've moved in has used different (usually opposite) words for different parts of this. There are plots, stories, narratives, and events, and everyone seems to use different words to talk about different things. I hope I'm making the distinction between "unordered events" and "a structured narrative" clear, though. I think that when people try to make the distinction between RPGs and Storygames they're making the distinction between play that focuses on interacting with raw events versus ones that interact with narrative arcs.

And again, you're almost always going to be dealing with both modes in a game. But I think there is a difference between taking an action because you want the treasure versus taking an action because you think it and its fallout will have interesting things to say about the nature of wanting treasure, even if in both cases I narrate taking the exact same actions in the same ways.

Effectronica posted:

I mean, Fiasco is very, very different in how it does things, because it uses lots of distancing effects, so I dunno how good an example it is .

I think this really deserves its own thread, but I'll say that I'd personally say (boy that's an ugly phrase) that a structured narrative, as you're describing it, is sort of a danger zone when it comes to a game's quality. Because on the one hand, I do believe it's possible to start out with "We're gonna use themes x, y, and z in this campaign" and have it work, but there's also the danger (and this is why I dislike fail-forward) of cutting away what makes RPG stories genuinely fascinating by killing the real suspense that emerges through play.

More importantly, I think that what you're describing as two modes are more about how you play the character rather than the game. In the events mode, you're acting your character and serving as audience to everyone else, whereas in the narrative mode you're acting your character while also serving as audience/director to your own performance. I think there's something to formalizing this split, but I dunno whether it says anything meaningful beyond the different ways people play characters. Because I, personally, tend to operated in the narrative mode when playing, but only partway, because I like to play comedic characters, and an important part of that is gauging reactions and correcting the performance.

Of course, when you're running a game, you're much more in the narrative mode just because you have to do directorial work by describing things and so on. Shall we take this to its own thread, or PMs if you'd prefer?

OtspIII posted:

Effectronica posted:

I think this really deserves its own thread, but I'll say that I'd personally say (boy that's an ugly phrase) that a structured narrative, as you're describing it, is sort of a danger zone when it comes to a game's quality. Because on the one hand, I do believe it's possible to start out with "We're gonna use themes x, y, and z in this campaign" and have it work, but there's also the danger (and this is why I dislike fail-forward) of cutting away what makes RPG stories genuinely fascinating by killing the real suspense that emerges through play.

Oh yeah, I don't think it's a good idea to do too much pre-structuring. I'm mostly talking about retroactive story-making ("we won that fight because we were brave") and making in-game choices specifically because you think they'll lead to situations that will create a more interesting narrative.

Effectronica posted:

More importantly, I think that what you're describing as two modes are more about how you play the character rather than the game.

Oh, for sure. I'm not trying to make a claim that the RPG/Storygame hard divide is real, just that I think there's something to be lost by analyzing RPG table events too purely as "stories" (things that retroactively make sense of what just happen) rather than also as players being caught in the middle of everything and just kind of trying to keep up (stuff happening). Players experience RPGs as both, and RPGs should be judged both for how interesting their "look back on what happened and makes sense of it" stories are and by how engaging their "immediate (often mechanical or utilitarian) choices without thought given to the greater narrative" moments of experience are.

Effectronica posted:

Shall we take this to its own thread, or PMs if you'd prefer?

If other people are interested in also weighing in on this I'd be up for another thread. I'm increasingly thinking we might not actually be disagreeing too much, except on semantics, though--I kind of want to call "the real suspense that emerges through play" something distinct from story (which I'm defining as something more retroactive), but I'm not going to say that you're wrong if you want to say that it falls under story's umbrella. That just means we're using different versions of "story", not that we disagree too hard about RPGs.

Endorph posted:

i dont know what the gently caress this thread is about

Effectronica posted:

It's where I hash out my manifesto before I send it to Wizards of the Coast with a note demanding they publish it or I blow up all of Dungeons and Dragons.

PurpleXVI posted:

Storygames: The cool, right thing that happens when I play my favourite RPG's.

Wrongfungames: The wrong, bad thing that happens when plebs play their favourite RPG's or when they play my favourite RPG's but play them wrong.

Cleaned up the terminology some for everyone who was having trouble following the conversation.

OtspIII posted:

Just ducking in for a second to say I've been thinking about this a lot since last night, but that I won't really have any free time to post for a few hours.

One thing I will note is that I actually think dungeon crawls (which isn't exactly D&D, but is a playstyle pretty closely related to it) are probably the style of play that I think most heavily leans towards. . .I really need a better term for this than "stuff happens" gameplay. Each room starts as an independent puzzle/challenge, allowing but not requiring larger context to be brought in as appropriate. But even then, the general trend is to start with a bunch of "events" and still end up with a "story" with a "narrative" about what happened during the session, but all that just gets come up with as people think back on what they've done rather than while they're in the thick of it.

Err, I guess the one complaint I have about your definitions is that I feel like the "a record of" part of your definition of "narrative" is actually pretty important and has a lot of implications. Basically, it implies that a narrative is a conscious effort to prune a description of a set of events and give it a sort of "meaning". Think of the term "controlling the narrative" about a subject matter.

Endorph posted:

i dont know what the gently caress this thread is about

paradoxGentleman posted:

If I understand the distinction between these playstyles correctly, some decent names for them could be "objective based" and "narrative based".

A player in an objective based game has a series of goals that he is trying to achieve; the game is about reaching these objectives and surpassing the obstacles that are between the players and those. While the wide world or the characters themselves have room for fleshing out, they are not the focus of the game, the challenges are. The closest comparison that I can make is with the Mario series: what happens is set in motion by the kidnapping of Peach, true, but you aren't really playing for that, you are playing because jumping on mushrooms and avoiding oversized bullets is fun.

A player in a narrative based game is also having fun, but in a different way: what matters to those sort of games is the roleplaying, the characters' story arcs and the setting they are in. The players' choices aren't dictated by what they believe is the best way to solve their problems: they are dictated by what makes a better story, or makes the most sense for their characters.

The truth is that most games are somewhere between these two extremes; not only that, but a lot of characters in narrative based games do have an objective in their lives and obstacles between themselves and those objectives; so a player's choices could be the same indipendently from where the focus lies.

I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation or even if it makes sense but I don't know how to put it better than that.

Effectronica posted:

I was thinking that procedural and dramatic were the best terms, but now I feel they'd be confusing, because we have the powergamer/whatever-you-call-people-who-make-ineffective-characters-for-"roleplaying" types who blend the two.

FactsAreUseless posted:

Look at this cultural Marxist poo poo right here.

It's not complicated: RPGs feature powerful masculine warriors and wizards uniting to overcome obstacles placed by a fair and objective DM.

Storygames are a bunch of basket weavers discussing their feelings while the "storyteller" (enabler) gives them all participation As and fudges dice rolls.

Maxwell Lord posted:

They're different extremes in the same medium, and there are all sorts of things in between.

It's like how Koyanisqaatsi and Transformers: Age of Extinction are both movies.

FactsAreUseless posted:

Oh great, now we can choose between roguelikes and visual novels. Thanks.

Maxwell Lord posted:

It's like how Koyanisqaatsi and Transformers: Age of Extinction are both movies.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Yeah but what is the Citizen Kane of RPGs

Maxwell Lord posted:

They're different extremes in the same medium, and there are all sorts of things in between.

It's like how Koyanisqaatsi and Transformers: Age of Extinction are both movies.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Yeah but what is the Citizen Kane of RPGs

Glorified Scrivener posted:

Oh cool, I 'm still hoping to get an answer to that question.

So to continue my trend of saying stupid things that invite ridicule in a pathetic attempt to engage with other human beings over the internet; it sounds like one of the play styles being described is somewhat analogous to the procedurally generated content in some computer games, with initial content and starting conditions determined, somehow, and then continuing in an open ended dialectical manner in response to player interaction with those starting conditions.

During play and afterwards a narrative is created by the participants as they process the series of events that've occurred, and their attachment/investment in this narrative influences their actions independent of game mechanics in a continuing game. This creation of story occurs even though nothing in the game mechanics directly interfaces with it on the level of "story". Is that somewhat close?

I'm not drawing the comparison to computer games in a derogatory manner - one of my favorite parts of Civ V is creating a narrative that explains why my civ will stop at nothing to drive the fascists into the sea, even if following that narrative doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics or victory conditions. Often in D&D or similar games the desire to advance a character mechanically by leveling, etc, rapidly fades to second place next to a concern with what they're going to do to influence the game world.

On the subject of why doors are locked, I’d rather the door be locked or unlocked for a reason internally congruent with the setting/narrative rather than because it’s dramatic. The best reason I can put forth for this is that it feels like a game where things always tend toward the most dramatic/interesting option is boring after a while, because there isn’t room for surprise, lateral thinking or having a quiet boring moment to contrast the exciting things. If everything is always interesting all the time (either because it is or those are the only moments you focus on) than it gets repetitious through overexposure.

And I get that 99% of the time a locked door is either picked, knocked or bashed down, but some of my favorite gaming moments have been when players creatively got around a locked door by doing something I didn’t expect and I love those kinds of surprises. I find them easier to come by when players are reacting to the constraints imposed by a more simulationist rules set.

Captain Foo posted:

are you for real

paradoxGentleman posted:

Well yes, but there are movies that are closer to one style of play or the other, so it can be helpful in searching what one is interested in to define them . I'd also argue that certain games can be played in both styles, even though some tend more strongly one way or the other.

Glorified Scrivener posted:

Oh cool, I 'm still hoping to get an answer to that question.

So to continue my trend of saying stupid things that invite ridicule in a pathetic attempt to engage with other human beings over the internet; it sounds like one of the play styles being described is somewhat analogous to the procedurally generated content in some computer games, with initial content and starting conditions determined, somehow, and then continuing in an open ended dialectical manner in response to player interaction with those starting conditions.

During play and afterwards a narrative is created by the participants as they process the series of events that've occurred, and their attachment/investment in this narrative influences their actions independent of game mechanics in a continuing game. This creation of story occurs even though nothing in the game mechanics directly interfaces with it on the level of "story". Is that somewhat close?

I'm not drawing the comparison to computer games in a derogatory manner - one of my favorite parts of Civ V is creating a narrative that explains why my civ will stop at nothing to drive the fascists into the sea, even if following that narrative doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics or victory conditions. Often in D&D or similar games the desire to advance a character mechanically by leveling, etc, rapidly fades to second place next to a concern with what they're going to do to influence the game world.

On the subject of why doors are locked, I’d rather the door be locked or unlocked for a reason internally congruent with the setting/narrative rather than because it’s dramatic. The best reason I can put forth for this is that it feels like a game where things always tend toward the most dramatic/interesting option is boring after a while, because there isn’t room for surprise, lateral thinking or having a quiet boring moment to contrast the exciting things. If everything is always interesting all the time (either because it is or those are the only moments you focus on) than it gets repetitious through overexposure.

And I get that 99% of the time a locked door is either picked, knocked or bashed down, but some of my favorite gaming moments have been when players creatively got around a locked door by doing something I didn’t expect and I love those kinds of surprises. I find them easier to come by when players are reacting to the constraints imposed by a more simulationist rules set.

Endorph posted:

Endorph posted:

Maxwell Lord posted:

True, it's just that thanks to Pundits and such there's this idea that they're two separate things with a clear line between them, when it's more a blurry thing. Like there are plenty of games that throw in occasional "author the narrative" elements but are mostly just "roll to succeed at a task", and that works.

Glorified Scrivener posted:

Oh cool, I 'm still hoping to get an answer to that question.

So to continue my trend of saying stupid things that invite ridicule in a pathetic attempt to engage with other human beings over the internet; it sounds like one of the play styles being described is somewhat analogous to the procedurally generated content in some computer games, with initial content and starting conditions determined, somehow, and then continuing in an open ended dialectical manner in response to player interaction with those starting conditions.

During play and afterwards a narrative is created by the participants as they process the series of events that've occurred, and their attachment/investment in this narrative influences their actions independent of game mechanics in a continuing game. This creation of story occurs even though nothing in the game mechanics directly interfaces with it on the level of "story". Is that somewhat close?

I'm not drawing the comparison to computer games in a derogatory manner - one of my favorite parts of Civ V is creating a narrative that explains why my civ will stop at nothing to drive the fascists into the sea, even if following that narrative doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics or victory conditions. Often in D&D or similar games the desire to advance a character mechanically by leveling, etc, rapidly fades to second place next to a concern with what they're going to do to influence the game world.

On the subject of why doors are locked, I’d rather the door be locked or unlocked for a reason internally congruent with the setting/narrative rather than because it’s dramatic. The best reason I can put forth for this is that it feels like a game where things always tend toward the most dramatic/interesting option is boring after a while, because there isn’t room for surprise, lateral thinking or having a quiet boring moment to contrast the exciting things. If everything is always interesting all the time (either because it is or those are the only moments you focus on) than it gets repetitious through overexposure.

And I get that 99% of the time a locked door is either picked, knocked or bashed down, but some of my favorite gaming moments have been when players creatively got around a locked door by doing something I didn’t expect and I love those kinds of surprises. I find them easier to come by when players are reacting to the constraints imposed by a more simulationist rules set.

paradoxGentleman posted:

It took three rereads but I think I finally understood what you're trying to say.

Glorified Scrivener posted:

Thanks and I’ll try to organize my thoughts more clearly.

In the first part I was trying to describe the style of play that I’m most familiar with, which roughly adheres to a dynamic of; Initial Situation -> Player Actions (+ GM Reaction) -> (New) Situation; repeat. Depending on the game the initial situation is set up by a GM or collaboratively by the players, the characters then take actions in response to the initial situation, creating a new one that requires further actions.

This can be complicated or refined all sorts of ways –the initial situation might include a timeline of actions that npcs will take until the player actions intersect with them, etc.

So attempting to use Effectronica’s earlier definitions, in this style of play the Plot would arise from the order of Events, with each Event being the result of player interaction with a situation, which creates and sets up the next Event. In this the player’s decisions at each juncture are influenced by how they initially conceived the character, what’s happened to them already and what they desire to have happen to them. This biographical element forms a major part of how each player perceives the story of that game and informs their choices going forward.

Now to make a fool of myself by discussing doors; I agree that the door being locked or unlocked depending on the drama of the situation doesn't make for a boring game – but also that it can potentially make for a game that never has boring moments. Which I admit sounds stupid. But if you elide everything surrounding the dramatic portions of the game with narration, so that choices only ever exist in dramatic contexts, it lessens the impact of those moments because they’re all dramatic. Even most roller coasters have long slow climbs that build tension and anticipation because they're not fast downhills.

So, in the example given, if the players come across a door that stops them dead in their tracks, how they determine to get past it isn't boring. I assume there’s a reason they want it open and multiple ways to open it, even if none of them are immediately at hand and they might have to seek one out and come back to that door later on.

Effectronica posted:

I was thinking that procedural and dramatic were the best terms, but now I feel they'd be confusing, because we have the powergamer/whatever-you-call-people-who-make-ineffective-characters-for-"roleplaying" types who blend the two.

Maxwell Lord posted:

That is one thing in favor of crunchier or more "sim" rules sets (disclaimer: the two are not the same thing and it's the D&D edition wars that muddied the waters)- there are more opportunities for the rules and the dice to create things you wouldn't have thought of yourself.

Best example is Traveller- both the chargen and sub sector generation, the latter of which makes you think "Okay why are there a billion people on this dwarf planet with a low-grade spaceport", and this forces decisions.

Of course they can also cut off possibilities by restricting things excessively.

UnCO3 posted:

This is starting to sound a bit GNS.

Anyway, here's some bullshit to contribute: a useful heuristic for whether something's on the storygame side of the spectrum might be the role of a character's failure in the mechanics. Does failure mechanically drive the story forwards? Does the game give equivalent mechanical significance and depth to a character's failure? Does it account for multiple types and layers of failure, both concrete and abstract, where a character can succeed on one level and fail on another? Does the game give players influence over when and/or how their character fails? Could a character conceivably fail to achieve their goals over and over again without the player losing interest or feeling that they've somehow failed? If you look at systems like Apocalypse World, FATE, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don't Rest Your Head and so on, the answer to most of these questions is yes - the systems themselves are built to make failure something that the players are mechanically and creatively involved in, and something that drives their story.

It's not perfect - Metrofinal would definitely be classified as a storygame even though ultimate success is explicitly guaranteed - but answering the question 'is failure interesting for everyone involved' does seem useful.