Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: What is a story game?

Bottom of Page

1 to 66 of 66

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 1
    "What is a story game?" is the second worst question ever on this site. "Is X a story game?" is the worst.

    I totally understand that different people want different things out of this site, and that for each person, the definition of story games is different. However, to ask either of the above questions is divisive and ridiculous. It will drive people away in a major way.

    A long time ago in a galaxy far, oh so incredibly far away, I wrote a post called The Five Percent on The Forge. It talked about the site having a goal, and five percent of people working against that goal with their own agenda. That thread was a precursor to what happened: that five percent grew and overtook the site, even infecting the leadership of the site.

    I think Story Games has a goal: to promote having fun and telling great stories with role-playing games, and sharing that fun with each other. Or maybe it's to gather together an excited group of people with shared interests in role-playing games to talk about whatever. Either way, "What is a story game?" is a question that works directly against those goals. Cut it out.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 2
    Clinton, is it worth describing how the term came about? I find that story helpful. Oh, and I agree.

    Graham
    • CommentAuthorColinC
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 3
    Posted By: Clinton"What is a story game?" is the second worst question ever on this site. "Is X a story game?" is the worst.


    Yep. My eyes glaze over and I skip right past these threads. If it gets to the point where I have to hunt for good threads amongst the dross, game over.
  4.  # 4
    Wait, why can't we have a term that means something a bit different from the traditional types of roleplaying games we all know? Personally, I'm trying to build a local community of people that are interested in playing/trying game systems where everyone shares more equally in the story creation. If I just say, "Story Games is just another word for roleplaying games" then the I think the group will lose focus. Why is it such a horror to define why these game system are different? To me, this group has a very different purpose than the Forge and perhaps you're applying the wrong lessons from that experience.
  5.  # 5
    Hm.

    If those discussions are limited to their own threads, why don't people who not enjoy them just not read them?
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 6
    Posted By: scottdunphyIf I just say, "Story Games is just another word for roleplaying games" then the I think the group will lose focus.


    Uh...what about stories as the common element of focus? I believe virtually all roleplaying games can be story games, and discussion of story techniques and pitfalls can be useful for people who are seeking story.

    If we're just going to talk about narration-passing games, I will bow out forever, because my regular group dislikes them.

    Edit: I don't know that I agree with the original post, because I like mucking about with this definition or that and don't see it as divisive, but I suspect that there are those that might and who am I to argue that? "No, you don't feel excluded!!"
    • CommentAuthorValamir
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 7
    I'll reiterrate here that I think all of the wonky bullshit goes largely away as long as we remember that the "game" in Story Game (or Role Playing Game) refers to the actual activity taking place around the table...and not the book with text in it.

    Remembering this immediately highlights how pointless "Is X a Story Game?" questions are, because the answer will always be, and can only be "Depends on how you play it."

    This perspective then immediately leads designers of game texts to the crucial question of how to promote and facilitate a certain play experience in the text...an area which I think our hobby is still particularly weak, even in the indie community.
  8.  # 8
    Posted By: scottdunphyWait, why can't we have a term that means something a bit different from the traditional types of roleplaying games we all know? Personally, I'm trying to build a local community of people that are interested in playing/trying game systems where everyone shares more equally in the story creation. If I just say, "Story Games is just another word for roleplaying games" then the I think the group will lose focus. Why is it such a horror to define why these game system are different? To me, this group has a very different purpose than the Forge and perhaps you're applying the wrong lessons from that experience.
    This is from the Story-Games codex:
    If You've Played Tabletop RPGs
  9.  # 9
    The way I look at it these days is this:

    How much time do people who play footbal and love footbal spend arguing about the definition of the word "sport"?

    Not much at all, from what I've observed.

    There's an activity called football, and people are engaged with the activity.

    In the same way there are activities called soccer and baseball and so on.

    About a week ago (before the recent crop of threads came up) I was making notes to myself about RPGs and wrote, "There is an activity called Sorcerer. There is an activity called Polaris. There's an activity called Dogs in the Vineyard. There's an activity called Primetime Adventures Not RPGs. The term is too broad to be of use anymore -- the games too specific and varied. There's the activity of each game. That's the part that matters."

    CK
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 10
    Posted By: Quintin StoneThis is from the Story-Games codex:
    If You've Played Tabletop RPGs


    That is full of massive win.

    Posted By: Thunder_God

    If those discussions are limited to their own threads, why don't people who not enjoy them just not read them?


    Because it invites and nurtures argumentative behavior. There are people who thrive on this online, I know.
    • CommentAuthorboulet
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 11
    Posted By: Quintin StoneThis is from the Story-Games codex:
    If You've Played Tabletop RPGs

    I wished I had seen this article before. I find it enlightening without constraining ideas on the subject. It would be worth being linked in a sticky conversation for every new visitors of the forum to consider.
  12.  # 12
    I have to say Clinton, to some people this is exactly the draw of Story-Games, what keeps us here:
    That you can discuss numerous things here. Not "just" the 'fun', or "just" the serious.
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 13
    Guy,

    Wait, that was my point - that people trying to stifle conversation by saying "X isn't a story game" are making me sad.

    Anyway, I'm not falling into the trap of arguing and defending online. I feel real good about my statement that saying "X is / isn't a story game" is not awesome; talking about how to make games full of story is awesome. That's really all I need to say.

    - Clinton
    • CommentAuthorchearns
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 14
    Posted By: ClintonCut it out.


    Clinton, I think what were seeing right now is just a lot of frustration on the part of members who come here to talk/read about games that are lesser known and used to tell the types of stories that traditionally role-playing games have not been very good at telling. And they come here and recently D&D has kind of been dominating the threads. And then they wonder why it is that D&D is dominating a place that they come to to talk about different games. Right or wrong on their part to ask the question? Eh, doesn't much matter to me, what matters to me more is the feelings that spawn the question.

    Now, I'll quote Graham at these people (which includes me) and say, "you must be the change you wish to see in the world." Seriously. If I want story-games to talk about something other than D&D, I should start up a thread about something other than D&D (like maybe the one where I quote the advice section from Enforcers, a 1987 super-powers game, which I think is simply marvellous (the advice, not the game, the game is shite)).

    EDIT: In case it isn't clear, I agree with you. Reading "D&D isn't a story game" is about as amusing as reading "Capes isn't a roleplaying game." Very importantly, there is no Zen to be found in discussions that label a game as this or that. These discussions will not help bring the fun to people's games, they'll just sit there and take up space and get people irked and get them to argue and instead of a bunch of threads describing how awesome D&D is, and how to make D&D even more awesome (threads that are useless to me but I'm glad people are having fun with D&D), we'll have that plus pointless debatey threads, which will probably infect other threads, either in mood or in content.
  15.  # 15
    Clinton, I'm trying not to argue.

    How about people who just try to find the definition of Story Games? Make a positive claim?

    Also, as a personal note, feel free to disregard it, I make "X is not an SG" claims as descriptive. I am interested in calling something which is blue "Blue", I consider it to be of value.

    Now, after that I say it's not a Story Game, why should it stop anyone, on this forum of all fora? I mean, we discuss board games, card games and such around here all the time. We discuss old-school RPGs*.

    But I agree, if it is meant as a method to stifle the discussion, then it runs counter to what I perceive to be SG's zeitgeist.
    * But hm, but that's also a valid point. These descriptive discussions often become arguments that just detract, but that's, to me, an argument against the way things happen, not the ideal.
  16.  # 16
    I'd rather talk about games like, "these are the parts that helped me get all storified, and I had trouble with these other parts." Pow. Discussion. Because then Clinton can be all, "dude, I totally got all storified with those other parts by doing these three things..."
    •  
      CommentAuthorAnemone
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 17
    I believe I understand Clinton's point as far as this site, this community goes. However, I still have to explain "what is a story game?" to other people, even gamers, and I need a coherent explanation. For example, our local group has taken the initiative to set up "Story Game Lounges" at local gaming conventions, on the Go-Play model. When I speak to convention organizers, gamers who haven't been exposed to story games, etc., I have to be able to tell them why this event should be run this way, rather than scheduling "Dogs in the Vineyard, Time block H, 2:00pm-6:30pm, Players: 2-6, Characters: Made at the table" in the convention program. Having read discussions trying to describe what story games are is therefore useful to me.
    • CommentAuthorJudd
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 18
    If you are frustrated with an online forum you have two productive choices:

    1) Make the threads you want to see happen.

    2) Leave (and perhaps start your own place where the threads you want to see are nourished more).
    • CommentAuthorkevperrine
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 19
    >
    > I think Story Games has a goal: to promote having fun and telling great stories with role-playing games, and sharing that fun with each other. Or maybe it's to gather
    > together an excited group of people with shared interests in role-playing games to talk about whatever. Either way, "What is a story game?" is a question that works
    > directly against those goals. Cut it out.
    >


    Regarding chearns point on D&D4 dominating threads,
    Question...
    Can any role-playing game NOT be a "story game"?

    I've always been inclined to believe that its the people that sit down at the table that "make" the game experience whatever it will become, together as a shared co-creative environment. I will allow that some games are predisposed to thinking about or playing in a certain vein, style, or way BUT I disagree strongly that any one game cannot be enjoyed only from one parameter.

    I have enjoyed many of the D&D4 threads because as a member of the role-playing (and Story Game) community it's not only the 500lb gorilla that has drawn my attention, not only because of D&D's nostalgia, but also because its actually a darn good game! I'm really impressed/intrigued with the want/attempts to take new next steps into the future of the hobby that 4e has shown. This can be seen with all the various rules/discussions that are influenced by computer game media, all the way to showing a clear "indy game" influence with attempts at new twists on creating drama (with the Skill Challenges for example).
    To the point with this... I consider my group a great mix of "classic" style RPGaming and the more Story Game role driven style and we're having a blast bringing THOSE styles to the brand new D&D4 campaign we've started.

    We can discuss what words or phrases mean, and that's very very interesting but assuming that the reader community can't give/take from those "worst" discussion questions and use the feedback to improve their games isn't very community-minded and that makes me sad.



    I'm happy to see when forums (like Story Games) allow for many different starting points from its users that all move toward a similar (if not exact same) goal... One thing I would caution though - I am (relatively) new to this Story Games forum as are many people with every new day... with that, I would be inclined to believe that IF and WHEN someone posts your "worst" and "second worst" questions that it could HELP those people come to the level of understanding that you feel you have. Apparently you've been around and heard many answers to these (and similiar) questions... But what about the people that haven't? Is it fair, right, or responsible of you as a member of the RPG-hobby community to stifle those conversations, those points of learning for others just because you've been involved longer?

    You noted that you "totally understand that different people want different things out of this site", but do you really understand that if you're criticizing the people that want to learn, understand and (eventually) add to the community and culture of Story Game, Role-playing Games or whatever you choose to call and define?


    This isn't meaning to be confrontational or argumentative, but it really confuses me why anyone that enjoys the hobby (from WHATEVER perspective) would want to disparage others looking to enjoy the hobby and community. So much negative air is spread when constructive criticism (and general discussion) turns to elitism which is 100% why I have never liked the Forge, since its inception... Comparatively, RPGnet has alot of fanboy conversation about games I never want to see, it has it's community favorites that come up ever three threads (*cough*exalted*cough*) but even still - for the most part I don't feel completely patronized if I ask a "stupid" question about a game or subject I'm familiar with as I always DID on the Forge.

    So in conclusion, I really like and appreciate the smaller like minded community such as this on Story Games primarily because (as a newer forum member) I haven't felt talked down to, nor have I felt apprehensive to ask a "stupid" question...


    Make sense?
    -kev-
    • CommentAuthorLukeS.
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 20
    This is hilarious. I was just about to start a thread titled "What Isn't a Story Game?" and I saw this. I was going to talk about board-games and war-games and how they can support the creation of a really solid narrative and can therefore be considered "story games."

    But I kind of see Clinton's point. I mean, *I* don't think that conceptual discussions are divisive or pretentious, but many people do, and if this community were to become focused on philosophical discussions like "what do we mean by 'story-game?'", then it is quite likely that many people will be turned away. And it seems like what Clinton and other people want is to talk about "playin' roles and rollin' dice," not philosophy. So that's cool.
  21.  # 21
    Luke, there IS a third option:
    We talk about both.
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 22
    People,

    Ok! Zen has been sufficiently harshed. Move on. I'm going to go play D&D, a story game.

    - Clinton
    • CommentAuthoralejandro
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 23
    Posted By: ClintonOk! Zen has been sufficiently harshed. Move on. I'm going to go play D&D, a story game.


    Awesome! When did that come out?

    alex
    • CommentAuthorArpie
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 24
    Well, my whole problem with this "X is a story game" or "X isn't a story game" issue is that I really was looking for a label.

    I wanted to say, "Oh, I feel like playing a story game, tonight" and use that as a hook for some new players that maybe wanted to try something different.

    If I could say, well, Traditional RPGs aren't what I mean by story games, but you can still tell a story with them, then that's fine.

    What it's turning into is something similar to "Organic" produce. In the end, all produce is organic to some extent. But if I happen to really like Majestic Purple Potatoes and they're classified as organic at the same time something else is, I've got a pretty useless extra label on my hand to juggle in or out of my sales pitch.

    In the end, I'm gonna just stick with what people know: "I like Roleplaying Games," I say and I'm right back where I started.

    (On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for anyone swamped by missives from the guys who try to include or exclude specific games in a definition. I have a strong agenda myself and I want to support and build interest in specific types of rpg, ones with particular features that I associate with story games. Games that don't have those features are just a distraction to me.

    This is a bit frustrating. I left the Forge because I was looking for help and I couldn't get any. I came here looking for a new type of game and it turns out there isn't one. I guess... I just feel stupid.)
    • CommentAuthorMoreno R.
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 25
    Posted By: AnemoneI believe I understand Clinton's point as far as this site, this community goes. However, I still have to explain "what is a story game?" to other people, even gamers, and I need a coherent explanation. For example, our local group has taken the initiative to set up "Story Game Lounges" at local gaming conventions, on the Go-Play model. When I speak to convention organizers, gamers who haven't been exposed to story games, etc., I have to be able to tell them why this event should be run this way, rather than scheduling "Dogs in the Vineyard, Time block H, 2:00pm-6:30pm, Players: 2-6, Characters: Made at the table" in the convention program. Having read discussions trying to describe what story games are is therefore useful to me.


    Hi Anemone!

    I think you you will have to write a definition you like for "story games" at that event, because, as this (and other) thread has shown, there isn't any, and (more important) this forum CAN'T have any. It's about the way of playing the games, not the actual games.

    But I would advise you to never, ever, use "story" in the name of an event where some rpgs are allowed and others not. There is almost nothing so flame-prone than discussions about what a "story" is.

    Other flame-worthy words: Indie, role-playing, narrative, narrativist, simulationist, gamist, thematic, etc.

    Yes, it's really difficult to be able to explain the difference between some game and others without using any of these. I really like the solution of this conundrum used by the Jeepers: they made up a nonsensical word, "Jeepform", (and called their group "we came by Jeep") , and said "Jeepform is what we (our group) say is jeepform". Nobody could argue with that.

    Genius.
  26.  # 26
    Well, it was a good try anyway, Clinton. Props to ya.
    • CommentAuthorMarco
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 27
    Posted By: Moreno R.Hi Anemone!

    I think you you will have to write a definition you like for "story games" at that event, because, as this (and other) thread has shown, there isn't any, and (more important) this forum CAN'T have any. It's about the way of playing the games, not the actual games.

    But I would advise you to never, ever, use "story" in the name of an event where some rpgs are allowed and others not. There is almost nothing so flame-prone than discussions about what a "story" is.

    Other flame-worthy words: Indie, role-playing, narrative, narrativist, simulationist, gamist, thematic, etc.

    Yes, it's really difficult to be able to explain the difference between some game and others without using any of these. I really like the solution of this conundrum used by the Jeepers: they made up a nonsensical word, "Jeepform", (and called their group "we came by Jeep") , and said "Jeepform is what we (our group) say is jeepform". Nobody could argue with that.

    Genius.


    Moreno is bang on with this advice.

    -Marco
    • CommentAuthorArpie
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 28
    I like the idea of making up your own label. That cheers me up a bit.

    On the other hand, it means, if the solution catches on, they'll be a flood of new terms and not much of a way to navigate it.

    I was just reading an article in Business Week about trust. It's important to maintain that. But you need a solid foundation in order to build trust, either in a community or in an industry. (One thing competitors try and do, especially in a weak economy, is to undermine trust, I read.)

    And if I can't use the magical label, "story games" any more, then the only group I'm in right now, called a "story games group," is in big, big trouble.
    Because I don't want to play [4e] or Shadowrun or even Dogs in the Vineyard there. Or Universalis or Penny for Your Thoughts, for that matter, but I'd probably still call those last two "story games" without hesitation, definition or no definition. That's the kind of stuff I came to this site to find, anyway (well, games like PtA and With Great Power... and Gumshoe, really.)

    So, what I'm stuck with, here, is a term I can't define for a group with only two players in it inspired by a site that's kinda getting swamped by outside influences.
    At no time in my roleplaying history have things been all that different. If I can get a few more players and run a game or two, the sun will shine on story games again.
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 29
    Posted By: Moreno R.But I would advise you to never, ever, use "story" in the name of an event where some rpgs are allowed and others not. There is almost nothing so flame-prone than discussions about what a "story" is.

    Other flame-worthy words: Indie, role-playing, narrative, narrativist, simulationist, gamist, thematic, etc.

    Really, it's best to avoid talking to other gamers at all.
    • CommentAuthorjoepub
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 30
    Clinton,
    I think the notion of being non-divisive is a great one.

    People have taken "story games" as a label, not to isolate "trad players" and "LARPers" and "old skoolers", but to identify themselves. They wanted to use the term story games as a banner. A banner for games that you can play at the drop of a hat, that share authority and produce great stories in a low-key social environment. They wanted "story games" to be the things that got played at meet-ups and con lounges.

    Do you have a better term for just that? The thing that envelops Shock, Red Box Hack and Don't Rest Your Head?

    We know that we don't want to call a game culture "indie", because that confuses the publishing approach. And besides, Unknown Armies and Tristat can both very easily fill that social niche described above, and they aren't indie. We want to have a title that can include those things.

    Can story games have two meanings? One that is a tag for the kinds of things that get played at Go Play and Camp Nerdly events, and one that is an umbrella for all games where fiction is part of play? I think so. I think so especially because no one is stressing the need to differentiate those two meanings. Because the (broad) latter do get played at the former.

    To me, "story games" means: Games where fiction influences mechanics and mechanics influence fiction, like Dogs in the Vineyard, Don't Rest Your Head, Covenant... and also, say, Dungeons & Dragons or Arkham Horror.

    I'd defend the idea of having a definition, and talking about what is a story game. I'd be most interested if the conversation went more like "is this an inner ring story game or an outer ring story game?"
    • CommentAuthorlemon
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 31
    Guys? I'm a story game!
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 32
    Posted By: joepubDo you have a better term for just that? The thing that envelops Shock, Red Box Hack and Don't Rest Your Head?


    How about: New Style.

    You know, after the Hogshead line from back in the day that included Baron Munchausen, Puppetland, Pantheon, De Profundis...

    I've always liked it as a term. Either "New Style RPG" or "New Style Story Game" or just "New Style."
  33.  # 33
    Posted By: misubaHow about: New Style.


    But what about 10 years from now when something's newer than the RPGs formerly known as Story Games? Those will have to be Post-New Style games like the silly post-modern art/design term.

    I'm sticking with Story Game. I've had to figure out how to define it to draw people in without offending (or offending as little as possible) and it works for me right now. But if someone comes up with something better, I'll be the second to change.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWolfe
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 34
    I think it might be a good idea to take that article linked up near the top and for everyone to agree that when discussing here, a Story Game is exactly what is described therein:

    A game where the focus of play is more on "Our Story" than "My Character". That game may be played with rulesets ranging from Shadowrun, D&D4E, Dogs in the Vineyard, Don't Rest Your Head, ReCoil, Capes or Monopoly. What matters with a Story Game is the agenda at the table.

    So the answer to the question of "What is a Story Game, reiterated, is this: "A Story Game is a game focused on the players creating a story together, rather than focused on specific characters or player roles, though these may still be strong components used in service of creating that story."

    (In the next two examples, X refers to a published ruleset such as the above-mentioned. X does not refer to a game session.)

    Further the answer to "Is X a Story Game?" will always be "Yes, if played with Story as the primary focus. These are techniques that I/We/You have used to make X more Storifically awesome (or quite good, if you're British)".

    Furthest, no one may say "X is most decidedly NOT a story game." Rather, they can say it, but it can (and should?) be automatically discounted as disagreeing with the incredibly simple definition of a Story Game, because any value of X (to include Poker, Backgammon and Russian Roulette) MAY be played with Story as the primary focus.

    Now maybe this leaves open the argument that Y instance of X (THIS D&D Campaign, or THAT session of Capes) is a Story Game. I think it probably does. But in this, only the participants may make a definitive statement as to whether or not it was or was not a Story Game, because only they can determine what the focus was with any certainty. Posters here may make their opinions known in any languange ("That session didn't seem like a Story Game to me, in my non-official opionion" or "That campaign was not a Story Game, because you stated that no one cared about the story") and may offer advice on how to make it a Story Game if that is desired. Which falls within the stated intent as I understand it.

    Or of course, this can be ignored. No skin off my nose. As someone said way up there, Once I have to wade through more BS (determined entirely subjectively by me, and without any concern for Story Gamism) than posts of worth, I'll stop reading.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     # 35
    And on the cool check in
    Center stage on the mike
    And we're puttin' it on wax
    It's the new style

    Four and three and two and one
    And when I'm on the mike - the suckers run
    Down with Adrock and Mike D. and you ain't
    And I got more juice than Picasso got paint
  36.  # 36
    Damn, it's hard to argue with the Beastie Boys.
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited
     # 37
    Posted By: scottdunphy
    But what about 10 years from now when something's newer than the RPGs formerly known as Story Games? Those will have to be Post-New Style games like the silly post-modern art/design term.

    You know how there's been Modern Rock for like 25 years now?

    When things change, the terms will change. I wouldn't worry about it.

    Posted By: scottdunphyDamn, it's hard to argue with the Beastie Boys.

    YER DAMN RIGHT
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 38
    Now, I'll quote Graham at these people (which includes me) and say, "you must be the change you wish to see in the world."


    To attribute this quote correctly: it's actually Clinton's. I borrowed it.

    Graham
  39.  # 39
    Posted By: Graham W
    Now, I'll quote Graham at these people (which includes me) and say, "you must be the change you wish to see in the world."


    To attribute this quote correctly: it's actually Clinton's. I borrowed it.

    [pedant]Actually it comes from Ghandi[/pedant]
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 40
    Easily confused.

    Graham
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 41
    I think it might be a good idea to take that article linked up near the top and for everyone to agree that when discussing here, a Story Game is exactly what is described therein:


    Wolfe, personally, I think we should just stop trying to define it.

    I don't like the Codex definition. When Mike started the Codex, I think I suggested that we just didn't try to define it.

    There's really not much need for a definition, beyond "The sort of games we play here".

    Graham
    •  
      CommentAuthorfnord3125
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited
     # 42
    i think i want to try to come up with the most insulting names i can for "types" of games. best i've got at the moment for "story" or "indie" games is probably "dirty hippie games" but that doesn't seem quite offensive enough. and i'm not really sure what to call "traditional" rpgs that would be insulting. maybe "table-top mumorpugers"? or maybe i could say "retro games" in a really patronizing voice even when i'm talking about games like d&d4e or other things that have just come out, like "it's so quaint that you still play those retro role-playing games."

    basically, i apparently want to alienate myself from everyone in my favorite hobby.
    • CommentAuthorMarco
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited
     # 43
    Posted By: fnord3125i think i want to try to come up with the most insulting names i can for "types" of games. best i've got at the moment for "story" or "indie" games is probably "dirty hippie games" but that doesn't seem quite offensive enough. and i'm not really sure what to call "traditional" rpgs that would be insulting. maybe "table-top mumorpugers"? or maybe i could say "retro games" in a really patronizing voice even when i'm talking about games like d&d4e or other things that have just come out, like "it's so quaint that you still play those retro role-playing games."

    basically, i apparently want to alienate myself from everyone in my favorite hobby.


    Traditional: Call them incoherent simulationist-by-habit heartbreakers.

    -Marco
    • CommentAuthortork
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 44
    Posted By: MarcoTraditional: Call them incoherent simulationist-by-habit heartbreakers.


    That seems pretty half-hearted. How about "dysfunctional incoherent simulationist-by-habit heartbreakers for brain-damaged people?"
  45.  # 45
    Well, they're aimed at non-brain damaged people, how did the brain damage develop to begin with?

    Also, are all of them dysfunctional? :P
    • CommentAuthorMarco
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited
     # 46
    Posted By: tork
    Posted By: MarcoTraditional: Call them incoherent simulationist-by-habit heartbreakers.


    That seems pretty half-hearted. How about "dysfunctional incoherent simulationist-by-habit heartbreakers for brain-damaged people?"


    The "dysfunctional" is implied (the game has a traditional GM). Actually, the incoherent / simulationist-by-habit could be held to be contradictory but it's "understood" that the speaker is using "shorthand" to say the main thrust of the game is simulationist-by-habit while having deceptive narrativist color thrown in. Also, as TG notes, the result of the game is brain damage a sub-set of narrativist players ... it isn't for them. It's for traditional mouth-breathing RPG players (i.e. catpiss men).

    -Marco
    •  
      CommentAuthorfnord3125
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 47
    Actually, I think the real key to making sure gamers of every stripe think I'm a close-minded asshole is my tone of voice.

    I'm pretty sure if when, for example, someone says to me, "Hey, are you interested in playing a game of 1001 Nights?" I just need to make sure I say, "Ugh. That's one of those weird dirty hippie games, isn't it? No way! I play 1st edition AD&D, like all real gamers." in the most disgusted, sneering tone of of voice possible, to convey the fact that the game that has been suggested is not even really a "game" at all, but some kind of activity that only snobby, liberal, anti-corporate, academic, literary elitists would play. And probably Canadians. Not real American Gaming Men like me!

    And when someone says "Hey, I'm thinking of starting up a 4e campaign, you want to play?" I need to chuckle condescendingly and perhaps pat them on the shoulder as I say, "Oh, it's SO cute that you still play those retro role-playing games. It does sound very amusing, but I've long sinced moved beyond those kind of vintage games. The things I play now are much more sophisticated. I'd invite you to play with me, but you probably wouldn't understand how they work."

    but, umm... yeah, okay. I'm done with this. all joking aside, i think all kinds of games can be cool, and arguing about terminology is always a tricksy, tricksy pain in the butt, to say the least. and for some reason always tends to make some people really irritated. i don't get it myself. words are words. they mean what you think they mean and there's no way around that. it would be helpful if there was some kind of standardized vocabulary so that people could discuss more meaningfully and easily, but that's a hard thing to do, especially in a hobby like this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWolfe
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 48
    Graham,

    I'm mostly okay with not defining it too, but a few people have come up with good reasons why a handy definition would help them.

    This is one of those cases where a simple, inclusive definition is beneficial to some, without being hindering to others. I can't personally see anything to dislike with the codex definition, unless you want a more hard-coded definition that excludes "trad" games or what have you.
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 49
    The only point to my story-games definition was to shut down the people who say "that's just a board game."
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited
     # 50
    I agree with the sentiment behind the OP, especially the ideas on 5% and all. Also, agree with misuba's attempt at a definition.

    Not interested in concluding what a Story Game is, how it's different, etc. As mentioned recently on another thread, I might call some of these things "Story Games", but to me it's primarily just the name of this site.

    But, Looking at Anemone's concerns, below:

    Posted By: AnemoneI believe I understand Clinton's point as far as this site, this community goes. However, I still have to explain "what is a story game?" to other people, even gamers, and I need a coherent explanation. For example, our local group has taken the initiative to set up "Story Game Lounges" at local gaming conventions, on the Go-Play model. When I speak to convention organizers, gamers who haven't been exposed to story games, etc., I have to be able to tell them why this event should be run this way, rather than scheduling "Dogs in the Vineyard, Time block H, 2:00pm-6:30pm, Players: 2-6, Characters: Made at the table" in the convention program. Having read discussions trying to describe what story games are is therefore useful to me.


    So she's not setting up like an "exclusionary zone", more like an "introductory zone". After thinking about it for a while, you know what I would do?

    I might call it a "Story Games" area or whatever, just for kicks, but I'd honestly introduce them as "lesser-known RPGs".

    Lesser-known RPGs is a pretty inclusive term IMO. You could throw down everything from Dogs in the Vineyard to RISUS to Roach to JAGS to Hardnova II, without having to contort and twist and think of the ways they're 'special' or 'different', and better yet without having to look like a person introducing them as 'special' or 'different'.

    So, like, if I show up at Games on Demand ready to throw down Dread (TFBOP), With Great Power, RISUS and Dogs in the Vineyard, and someone else shows up with Iron Gauntlets, JAGS Have-Not and Faery's Tale, we can throw down in the same are with no problems, I think. There might be some hemming and hawwing over whether I (being someone showing up to a play area) want to play Dogs in the Vineyard or JAGS (cause they're two quite different games), but probably not any more pronounced then showing up to a general play area and hemming and hawwing over whether I want to play Traveller or Vampire: The Dark Ages (cause they're two quite different games).

    -Andy
    • CommentAuthorjaywalt
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     # 51
    I generally just go with "small press games" (not the lack of capitol letters and jargon) for Anemone's purposes. Like, when I tell people about Story Games Boston, where we've been playing a fair bit of 4e lately, I say, "Yeah, we meet every week to play games, most of which are of the small press variety, but sometimes we play D&D or board games or card games."
    • CommentAuthorwillem
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2008
     # 52
    For my own sanity, I use the word "storyjamming" and "a storyjam" for any time I get together with friends with the intent to experience the unfolding of a collaborative story, that derives its ethic from the "yes, and..." philosophy of improv.
    • CommentAuthorArpie
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 53
    I like storyjamming as a way of describing how one might tweak or approach a traditional game to take it away from solo-characters-verus-GM-oriented to team-story-help-the-poor-GM oriented play.

    I should probably spell it as two words, but when I do that, it looks like a type of deviant behavior or an insult. "Go story jam yourself," for instance.
    Storyjamming looks better.

    But I still need a term for the type of rules set I'm looking for. Scott Dunphy suggested Plot Arc game or Plot Arc RPG for things like With Great Power and Prime Time Adventures, which is very close to what I'm looking for right now. He uses Collaborative Narration to describe games like Universalis and Pantheon and Baron Munchausen.

    I forget what he uses to describe Dogs in the Vineyard and Spirit of the Century, but I'd class them in a similar category to Ars Magica or D&D 4e. (May I point out here that I like Ars Magica and D&D 4e? But not as methods of team-oriented-story-play. Badass-Avatar-Interaction is what I'm looking for in a D&D 4e showdown, boyeee.)

    Damn you and your Beastie Boys reference. It doesn't wear off.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBen Lehman
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 54
    I find it really funny that people are arguing this, with a term that was used to put these arguments to rest.

    I was talking with Tony about this the other day, and I think people are unclear on the history. The term "story games" is specifically an inclusive term, stemming from a bunch of RPGnet arguments about how ______ game was not a role-playing game, and thus shouldn't be discussed on RPGnet. To avoid this semantic stupidity, a new word (and site) were invented.

    Now, people want there to be things that aren't really story games. This is dumb.

    Any game can be a story game, and if you want to talk about it at this site, okay. Like, if you want to talk about how to make a story from your chess game, sweet.

    yrs--
    --Ben
    •  
      CommentAuthorBen Lehman
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008 edited
     # 55
    Posted By: Filip Luszczyk
    How sweet is that, in the long run?


    Totally.
  56.  # 56
    I wasn't on RPGnet and I didn't know the history. I found the Codex, liked that definition, and decided to use it to build a local community of players that want to play games with mechanics that are about creating story together in their RPGs. I'm not using the term to poke anyone in the eye. What exactly is wrong with having a name that covers a category of games? How do I coherently say, "This group is about getting together to play this style of game," when apparently making any attempt at categorization is "divisive"?

    I don't "want there to be things that aren't really story games". I want to be able to explain my group's purpose in less than a page.

    Ben, I think you and Clinton are applying the wrong lessons from the past. I agree that it's a terrible idea to beat up on each others' games here - that's not the point. As the number of these Indie/Story/Hippie games grows and awareness of them grows among gamers across the country, people need to organize and explain themselves to local groups; not with the intent of having an Internet argument, but for the purpose of playing these games together.

    So no "Story Games Lounge", no local Story Games groups, no capitalized story games category? Look, I'm not a hippie. I don't hate "labels" just because they're labels. I think labels are useful. I've been running games at conventions and organizing local RPG groups for years. I think these games need their own category and "Story Games" works well. But are you saying we should jetison that term for that purpose because that's not what it was originally intended for? I've been on this site for almost a year and this is the first time I've heard the history of the term.

    Furthermore, people are coming to this site looking for information on a particular breed of games. This is where the people who wrote those games can be found and where people can find advice on running and playing those games. So if this site is going to spurn that identity, then I would submit that there is a legitimate, non-flamy, need for a site to promote the play of these games.
  57.  # 57
    Posted By: ArpieHe uses Collaborative Narration to describe games like Universalis and Pantheon and Baron Munchausen.


    Actually I'm leaning towards "Narration Interference Engine" becuase it's a bit more accurate and sounds a lot cooler. But I need to play more of these games (and all the other types too!) before I make any changes to that.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGraham
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008 edited
     # 58
    Posted By: Ben LehmanI find it really funny that people are arguing this, with a term that was used to put these arguments to rest.

    I was talking with Tony about this the other day, and I think people are unclear on the history. The term "story games" is specifically an inclusive term, stemming from a bunch of RPGnet arguments about how ______ game was not a role-playing game, and thus shouldn't be discussed on RPGnet. To avoid this semantic stupidity, a new word (and site) were invented.

    Now, people want there to be things that aren't really story games. This is dumb.

    Any game can be a story game, and if you want to talk about it at this site, okay. Like, if you want to talk about how to make a story from your chess game, sweet.


    Thanks. Yes. That's the story that really helped me.

    I am holding myself back from talking about Wittgenstein and chairs.

    Graham
    • CommentAuthorMarco
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 59
    Posted By: Ben LehmanPosted By: Filip Luszczyk
    How sweet is that, in the long run?


    Totally.


    Indeed.

    -Marco
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 60
    Posted By: scottdunphy
    Posted By: ArpieHe uses Collaborative Narration to describe games like Universalis and Pantheon and Baron Munchausen.


    Actually I'm leaning towards "Narration Interference Engine" becuase it's a bit more accurate and sounds a lot cooler. But I need to play more of these games (and all the other types too!) before I make any changes to that.


    Heheheheh. Much better that, than " Really? Uh-huh. Okay, I can see that, too. Right. Right. HOLD ON, NOW! That's Bullsh*t!! Roll some dice!" Games, which would have been my suggestion.
    • CommentAuthorchearns
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 61
    The debate as to whether or not Capes is an RPG.

    This is what the what is a story-game conversation looks like. To me it is dumb and useless.
  62.  # 62
    Posted By: komradebob
    Posted By: scottdunphy
    Posted By: ArpieHe uses Collaborative Narration to describe games like Universalis and Pantheon and Baron Munchausen.


    Actually I'm leaning towards "Narration Interference Engine" becuase it's a bit more accurate and sounds a lot cooler. But I need to play more of these games (and all the other types too!) before I make any changes to that.


    Heheheheh. Much better that, than" Really? Uh-huh. Okay, I can see that, too. Right. Right. HOLD ON, NOW! That's Bullsh*t!! Roll some dice!"Games, which would have been my suggestion.


    It's a little wordy. How about "Fucking With Other Peoples' Stories" engine?
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 63
    How about : "Games with too much awesomeness to decide between, so we put some dice in to help pick one kind of awesomeness at a time!" Games.

    Graham will have to do the translation of that into British.
  64.  # 64
    Ben, that's history.

    Seeing things that don't categorize; come up with a new, more inclusive term; seeing things that don't categorize under the new term.
    Repeat.
    • CommentAuthorArpie
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 65
    Well, that's just the way these things go.

    You're trying to find other people interested in taking the approach you want to take, so you try to come up with a catchy term to describe that approach.

    Other people add ideas, create new directions and new terms pop up.

    To be honest, I always thought the term "story game" sounded too much like "storyteller system," which makes me rather uncomfortable.
    Maybe that's why we're having so much trouble filling up our group - we sound too exclusive. But it's too late to change the name NOW!

    I'm thinking of going with WtFGMN, BM (Who's the Freaking GM Now, Big Maaan?) for my current gaming goal.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2008
     # 66
    Posted By: Ben LehmanTotally.
    times ONE MILLIONNN

1 to 66 of 66

  1.