What's the definition of "story game"?

[CRKrueger]

Maybe. The advantage of "I know it when I see it" is that you can shift goal posts endlessly.

Well, it's also true the advantage of debating someone not using a strict definition because they don't have terms for it allows one to easily dismiss them as shifting goalposts, when you pretty much know generally, if not exactly, what they are referring to.

Someone says Fate is a storygame, I might not agree with them, because I know they aren't using the definition of StoryGame I would prefer, but I know exactly what they are saying and so do you.

 

[Baulderstone]

Well, it's also true the advantage of debating someone not using a strict definition because they don't have terms for it allows one to easily dismiss them as shifting goalposts, when you pretty much know generally, if not exactly, what they are referring to.

Someone says Fate is a storygame, I might not agree with them, because I know they aren't using the definition of StoryGame I would prefer, but I know exactly what they are saying and so do you.

Sure, but your hypothetical person is at least giving Fate as a solid example of what they consider a story game. I can live with someone defining by example.

 

[Edgewise]

Anyway. During the heydays in the go-go 90s before THE WEB became a thing, there were Usenet groups to discuss, advocate, and argue about computers. Ah, platform advocacy!

Usenet argued about far more than platforms. Every bad behavior that gets attributed to b-chan and something awful was honed to perfection decades earlier on Usenet. You had to be pretty digitally literate to be on Usenet before '95 (aka The Great AOL Stampede), so it was the online equivalent of wittily urbane gentlemen shanking each other behind a dumpster.

 

[Necrozius]

Disclaimer: the following post has been revealed to be full of shit. Grain of salt etc... while reading it.

The thread about player agency got me thinking about story games. I believe that one of the qualities of a story game is applying constraint to player choice during character creation.

To be clear, I'm of the mind that constraints can be liberating. You can avoid "analysis paralysis" if there aren't unlimited character concepts and combinations of traits. Like a fractal, it narrows a player's perception of what makes up their character. This can also be very positive.

Some complain that this is too limiting; that characters will be less diverse. I wholly disagree. I've seen just as much character diversity in games with medleys of fantasy races vs. human-only settings. Who'd have thought that humans are diverse?

Such limitations can also allow a GM to put greater focus on certain themes or environments. This can be really positive to a gaming experience.

Constraints, I've always felt, were assumed when it came to D&D. You don't HAVE to permit every single combination of class and race out there. A GM could say: in this setting, you can choose any race except for Tieflings, Half-orcs and Gnomes. Or even say "humans only, half-orcs are reskinned into the magical northern frost people".

When it comes to story games, I can see the appeal of narrowing down the experience. As a GM (or even player) did you ever really yearn to play through a certain type of scenario but it didn't go that way, due to the open-nature of traditional RPGs? Well, with this genre, you totally can.

That's worth exploring, in my opinion. "Do Not Let Us Die in this Cold Dark Winter" (or whatever it was called), while happily eaten up by the OSR, is basically a story game...

Interesting.

 

[Apocryphal]

I gotta say, it always seemed to me that in D&D all constraints were off. People are encourage to make characters at home and just show up with whatever of a certain level. There also seems to be an assumption that if it was published, it's valid. There are hundred of inexperienced DMs asking in fora how to handle things when some player who knows the cornucopia of rules better than the GM what to so when they show up with their Uber-PC.

And also by contrast, I don't think there's anything especially story-gamish about constraints. Some systems, like swords without master, encourage you to show up with whatever avatar, justify it, and play it. It bills itself as a sword-and-sorcery game, but if the players want to make a ninja, a gunslinger, or a tolkienesque dwarf, it's all good. There are no constraints. Other story games are much more focused and do provide constants.

Trad games (which seems to be defined by consensus as games that focus on traditional roleplaying modes but aren't D&D/OSR) are very setting oriented and feature all kinds of constraints.

 

[TristramEvans]

I would assume constraint on character creation is based more upon the specificity of the game's setting/premise as opposed to what type of game it is. But I also consider chargen rules as existing "outside" of gameplay so I couldnt imagine applying any terms that describe playstyle to it.

 

[Voros]

Yeah specific character chargen or settings are common in some storygames but that is as true of many trad RPGs, and there are other storygames like Microscope which are tremendously open-ended.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I gotta say, it always seemed to me that in D&D all constraints were off. People are encourage to make characters at home and just show up with whatever of a certain level. There also seems to be an assumption that if it was published, it's valid. There are hundred of inexperienced DMs asking in fora how to handle things when some player who knows the cornucopia of rules better than the GM what to so when they show up with their Uber-PC.

That's why I'm a big fan of the Session Zero concept. Everyone gets together with the GM in a group and makes characters together. That way, the GM can set boundaries that everyone is aware of and people can work towards making a group rather than a gathering of individuals.

I have to say, I'm getting a strong urge to do a 3.5 game, with a few tweaks and some awareness of the various Tiers and how to apply them in the real world. Then get a conversion of a classic module, like Keep on the borderlands, The Lost City. Something like that. And then see what it spins off into.

 

[Necrozius]

I stand corrected. Editing my post.

 

[Ladybird]

I gotta say, it always seemed to me that in D&D all constraints were off. People are encourage to make characters at home and just show up with whatever of a certain level. There also seems to be an assumption that if it was published, it's valid. There are hundred of inexperienced DMs asking in fora how to handle things when some player who knows the cornucopia of rules better than the GM what to so when they show up with their Uber-PC.

You see this in other games though; I think it just looks like a D&D problem because D&D is the game that gets the most discussion.

It's slightly different for organised play, but that's not the norm, and the organisations typically have their own chargen requirements anyway (D&D 5e Adventurer's League being "corebook + one other", frex).

 

[Apocryphal]

You see this in other games though; I think it just looks like a D&D problem because D&D is the game that gets the most discussion.

Sure, but I was replying to someone who had cited D&D as an example of a system that applied constraints, so presented evidence to the contrary.

 

[Ronnie Sanford]

I am trying to follow this thread (and learn something in the process) but I am not up on the examples as I have pretty much only played simulationist games (predominately D&D 2nd Edition and BRP). Can someone give a couple exampes of what a narrative mechanic is?

 

[Ladybird]

I am trying to follow this thread (and learn something in the process) but I am not up on the examples as I have pretty much only played simulationist games (predominately D&D 2nd Edition and BRP). Can someone give a couple exampes of what a narrative mechanic is?

Well... that’s what we’re discussing :p

At a basic level, consider a knight. In a simulationist system, we might give him the skills Sword, Ride, Battlefield Command, Geography, and Courtly Etiquette. Pretty simple, right? We can look at the skills and quickly tell if they’re appropriate for what we’re trying to do.

In a more narrative system, we might give him Aspect : Knight of Mercia. Any time being a knight of Mercia comes up, he gets a bonus to whatever he’s doing... and there may even be times when it’s a disadvantage, in which case he might get a disadvantage... but that’s okay, because he’ll likely get some opposing bonus at some point in the future. In some cases, he may even be able to say something like “because I’m a knight, I know Dave the Squire has buried a chest with his savings in this field, so I dig it up for a short-term cash boost”.

Some would say it’s a natural evolution of prior bits of game design, some would say it’s a completely different thing, and some might be in the middle about it.

 

[Simlasa]

In a more narrative system, we might give him Aspect : Knight of Mercia. Any time being a knight of Mercia comes up, he gets a bonus to whatever he’s doing... and there may even be times when it’s a disadvantage, in which case he might get a disadvantage... but that’s okay, because he’ll likely get some opposing bonus at some point in the future. In some cases, he may even be able to say something like “because I’m a knight, I know Dave the Squire has buried a chest with his savings in this field, so I dig it up for a short-term cash boost”.

To me the "Knight of Mercia" descriptor is similar to occupations and factions in other, trad, games... and not 'storygamey' till you get to the part where the Player is making up setting details to suit his needs.
I like the occupation/faction idea as a less specific skill and something that ties the PC to the setting (like Runequest's cults)... but I'll balk at the Player's insertion of a new NPC hiding cash for him to find.

 

[Nick J]

I am trying to follow this thread (and learn something in the process) but I am not up on the examples as I have pretty much only played simulationist games (predominately D&D 2nd Edition and BRP). Can someone give a couple exampes of what a narrative mechanic is?

I'm in the same boat. From the what little I've read of a couple of "narrative" type systems, it seems to boil down to one key element: the players have the authority to edit the setting within certain parameters or declare certain things as fact as it pertains to their character.

Not my cup-o-tea, generally speaking, but I do like some of the pre-campaign, shared world-building activities that Beyond the Wall employs, which seems inspired by this sort of mechanic.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well... that’s what we’re discussing :p

At a basic level, consider a knight. In a simulationist system, we might give him the skills Sword, Ride, Battlefield Command, Geography, and Courtly Etiquette. Pretty simple, right? We can look at the skills and quickly tell if they’re appropriate for what we’re trying to do.

In a more narrative system, we might give him Aspect : Knight of Mercia. Any time being a knight of Mercia comes up, he gets a bonus to whatever he’s doing... and there may even be times when it’s a disadvantage, in which case he might get a disadvantage... but that’s okay, because he’ll likely get some opposing bonus at some point in the future.

Hmm, see, I don't consider that a narrative mechanic at all, just an abstraction.

Though I would say this...

In some cases, he may even be able to say something like “because I’m a knight, I know Dave the Squire has buried a chest with his savings in this field, so I dig it up for a short-term cash boost”.

...goes into narrative mechanic territory.

 

[Ladybird]

To me the "Knight of Mercia" descriptor is similar to occupations and factions in other, trad, games... and not 'storygamey' till you get to the part where the Player is making up setting details to suit his needs.
I like the occupation/faction idea as a less specific skill and something that ties the PC to the setting (like Runequest's cults)... but I'll balk at the Player's insertion of a new NPC hiding cash for him to find.

I do agree; but it was it was intentionally extreme example to demonstrate the difference between it and saying "I'm a knight" as part of a character concept. I very much doubt that, in practice, many groups would allow that, although the existence of Dave the Squire would probably be legit.

 

[Simlasa]

Not my cup-o-tea, generally speaking, but I do like some of the pre-campaign, shared world-building activities that Beyond the Wall employs, which seems inspired by this sort of mechanic.

Yeah, suggestions and ideas before the campaign starts have never bothered me... and I'm not adverse to taking a Player's erroneous notion during a game and running with it, "The farmer might have buried some gold under his woodpile, let's go dig!"
I just don't want/need rules for such things.

Like... while playing Earthdawn years ago, I had my PC ask about a type of rare jungle bird I (as a Player) had read about in an Earthdawn setting book that turned out to be fan-made and non-canon. The GM never did let me find that bird but my PC kept it as an obsession and the GM would occasionally feed us rumours about it and we eventually set off on an expedition to find one.
In the end it was all much more entertaining than if I'd just spent a bennie and declared that I found one in a market and bought it.

 

[Apocryphal]

I am trying to follow this thread (and learn something in the process) but I am not up on the examples as I have pretty much only played simulationist games (predominately D&D 2nd Edition and BRP). Can someone give a couple exampes of what a narrative mechanic is?

It's a very subjective thing. I've seen people claim (unconvincingly, IMO) that hit-points are narrative elements. As Ladybird said above, some people think that prose-descriptive abilities are narrative mechanics (I don't - if they were Barbarians of Lemuria might as well be a narrative game.) I think most people agree these aren't narrative mechanics, though.

Things I do consider narrative elements are those that allow players to bypass their character and directly influence the outcome of the events in a game. Fate or Luck points in the Fate or Mythras systems are a good example. For most, these are acceptable narrative mechanics.

A lot of games go a good step further and place setting creation in the hands of players so that the burden of creating a setting is shared and can more easily be handled on the fly. Under these rules, players can spend story points to introduce objects or npcs that were not there before. Many games require that all participants set up and frame the scenes which occur in the game. Many others use 'conflict resolution' systems in which the entire conflict/battle/conversation comes down to the result of a single roll of the dice, and the winner can narrate how the scene ends. These are the kinds of mechanics that really push things into story-gaming territory, because it becomes obvious the rules or focused on having the players tell stories, rather than playing roles.

 

[TristramEvans]

The purest example of a Narrative MEchanic would be the Fate points in Fate, when used by players as currency to define a "fact" about the gameworld.

Extreme example:
GM: you exit the corridor into a large carvern, perhaps a hundred paces across, whose vaulted ceilings rise many stories above your head. Sitting on one of the huge oakwood rafters that cross just below the ceiling is a ice-blue dragon.
Player 1: I spend a Fate point to declare the Dragon is asleep
Player 2: I spend a Fate point to declare the Dragon is deaf.
Player 3: I spend a Fate point to see there is a large magical sword of Dragonslaying atop a pile of treasure in one far corner of the room.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm in the same boat. From the what little I've read of a couple of "narrative" type systems, it seems to boil down to one key element: the players have the authority to edit the setting within certain parameters or declare certain things as fact as it pertains to their character.

Thats certainly a part of it. I would tend to be more generalized and say that a "narrative" type system is one where the players regard the game from a third-person storyteller perspective, rather than a first-person perspective of playing a role, ass enforced by the mechanics. Meaning, this is a style of play that one can use the most traditional system for , if one were so inclined. OD&D can be played "as a Storygame". Narrative mechanics, OTOH, enforce this playstyle.

 

[Simlasa]

I do agree; but it was it was intentionally extreme example to demonstrate the difference between it and saying "I'm a knight" as part of a character concept. I very much doubt that, in practice, many groups would allow that...

Well, I've seen it done a lot with 'background' in various ways... like I had a Deadlands PC who I introed as having been a pirate/smuggler before losing a leg in an accident (disadvantage). I'd given him various skills along that theme but when other things that seemed 'nautical'... such as using a ship's harpoon gun against attacking sea monsters... came up, the GM would give him a bonus of some sort.
Dungeon Crawl Classics has its level zeros roll for an occupation that might come up later in the game when that former life experience would apply, letting the Player make a 'trained' roll rather than the usual 'untrained' roll.

 

[xanther]

I'm in the same boat. From the what little I've read of a couple of "narrative" type systems, it seems to boil down to one key element: the players have the authority to edit the setting within certain parameters or declare certain things as fact as it pertains to their character.
.......

This above I consider narrative....

 

[xanther]

The purest example of a Narrative MEchanic would be the Fate points in Fate, when used by players as currency to define a "fact" about the gameworld.

Extreme example:
GM: you exit the corridor into a large carvern, perhaps a hundred paces across, whose vaulted ceilings rise many stories above your head. Sitting on one of the huge oakwood rafters that cross just below the ceiling is a ice-blue dragon.
Player 1: I spend a Fate point to declare the Dragon is asleep
Player 2: I spend a Fate point to declare the Dragon is deaf.
Player 3: I spend a Fate point to see there is a large magical sword of Dragonslaying atop a pile of treasure in one far corner of the room.

and certainly this is narrative mechanic

 

[xanther]

Along those lines...

I The crux ( to me) is how you objectively and game mechanically go about "creating" the story, is it emergent or imposed.

In D&D, for example, I would say the story emerges. I may very well want to go into that dungeon and come out rich with a magical sword, or die heroically saving my friends, and will choose my character actions accordingly, but there is no guarantee that is going to happen. The story that emerges could well be I die by a trap in a most inglorious manner. My ability to "create" a story is limited to my character's actions, and the roll of the dice.

A story game or story mechanic, to me, is one where I have some mechanic, to negate the die roll (or avoid rolling entirely), that has nothing to do with character abilities but rather is a mechanism for me a player to have control over the story that results. For example, I really don't like the idea of dying by a trap, so I have a "story point" to spend to say that doesn't happen. A "weak" version would be to say I got lucky and just avoided it, a "strong" version would say there was not trap at all. Or, I may be really upset I didn't come across a magic sword, so I use a "story point" to make that happen, e.g., by declaring the chest I opened has such a sword in it.

 

[Simlasa]

Things I do consider narrative elements are those that allow players to bypass their character and directly influence the outcome of the events in a game. Fate or Luck points in the Fate or Mythras systems are a good example. For most, these are acceptable narrative mechanics.

It depends on the way their presented and used.
I'm generally not fond of 'Luck Points' in a game unless I can see them as representing something in the setting.
Like, DCC has Luck... but it's presented as being a real element of the game world... as some people believe it is in our own reality... AND there can be dire consequences for spending too much of it.
Similarly, if it can just be seen as making a particularly strenuous effort at time of great importance... I'm fine.
It's when 'Luck Points' are flowing freely and everyone is spending them on every little adversity that I find them annoying (my experience with Savage Worlds).

Also, I don't like when rules allow them to be spent after the fact, re-rolls... to edit what just happened (let alone edit the setting). I prefer them to be spent as the attempt is made, to declare 'this action is important to me'.
In Mythras I'd rather change the rule slightly or just not use them at all.

 

[Voros]

Most of the examples of narrative mechanics here so far seem to be unconsciously built around the idea of the player essentially abusing the mechanic to benefit their PC. Outside of FATE, which I’m unfamilar with, I can’t think of any narrative RPGs that actually allow such abuse.

In most actual storygames this would be pointless, the players take turns narrating or GMing the game, the individual PC (if there is one) is less important (hence why some would say they are less immersive) and the games generally don’t involve the semi-competitive or powergaming aspect that most of the examples take for granted.

There is a base assumption in storygames, often overtly stated in the rules, that the point of the game is cooperative not about the individual PC, in this way they are often completely misunderstood or the game bungled by powergamers. But I actually consider most trad RPGs (Paranoia aside) cooperative games (Gygax repeatedly referred to D&D as a coop game), the powergamers looking out for the exclusive benefit of their PC are a blight at every table regardless of the system.

I wonder if this is why many of the better storygames, like Fiasco or Final Girl, are overtly built around genres where the PCs are doomed to one degree or another, perhaps this helps get the players out of the ‘survival at all costs is winning’ mindset and turns off the powergamers who shouldn’t even be at the table.

 

[Voros]

Not my cup-o-tea, generally speaking, but I do like some of the pre-campaign, shared world-building activities that Beyond the Wall employs, which seems inspired by this sort of mechanic.

When I read BtW this element reminded me of Apocalypse World world creation as did the playbooks. Subsquently one of the BtW designers has said AW was an influence on BtW.

Other world creation games I’d reccomend are Microscope, obviously, and the Quiet Year (a village) and Deep Forest (a ruin/dungeon).

 

[robiswrong]

It's when 'Luck Points' are flowing freely and everyone is spending them on every little adversity that I find them annoying (my experience with Savage Worlds).

I consider that a failure state in Fate play. Good Fate play has you never having enough Fate Points.

It's probably the most common issue I see with new GMs, not setting difficulties appropriately given the fact that Fate Points are a thing.

 

[CRKrueger]

Thats certainly a part of it. I would tend to be more generalized and say that a "narrative" type system is one where the players regard the game from a third-person storyteller perspective, rather than a first-person perspective of playing a role, ass enforced by the mechanics. Meaning, this is a style of play that one can use the most traditional system for , if one were so inclined. OD&D can be played "as a Storygame". Narrative mechanics, OTOH, enforce this playstyle.

This is a key point.
You can play OD&D to create story if you want to - you simply pull back OOC, don the hat of the author/director/storyteller, and do things that you think would make a good story. You're trying to create a story as you go.
You can also play OD&D without creating a story - you simply stay IC, roleplay the character and as much as possible, think and act as the character without regards to any meta concerns.
I'm sure there are people who have played since the 70's for whom "RPGs create stories" is a true statement for them, because they've been doing it since the 70's.
I'm sure there are people who have played since the 80's for whom "RPGs create stories" is a false statement for them, because they don't create stories when they roleplay. I'm one of them.

Once you start narrowing the experience by having mechanics enforce an OOC authorial stance, then you start excluding other playstyles by making the authorship inescapable.

 

[CRKrueger]

Can someone give a couple exampes of what a narrative mechanic is?

The easiest way to spot a narrative mechanic is to really look for an Out of Character mechanic, because by definition, narrative mechanics have to be OOC.

So whenever the game introduces a choice the player has to make, ask yourself...
"Is this a choice my character is aware of and can make?"
Let's take the boggiest of Bog Standard OOC mechanics, the Do-Over. This mechanic is usually called Luck, Fate, Karma, whatever and allows something like the following choice:

Cheat Fate
Characters can use a Luck Point to re-roll any dice roll they make or swap the numbers already rolled, when rolling a d100 for example. This can be a skill roll, damage roll or anything else that has some effect. Characters can even force an opponent to re-roll an attack or damage roll made against them.
Desperate Effort
If a character has exhausted his Action Points during a fight and needs to find that last burst of desperate energy to perhaps avoid a messy demise, he may spend a Luck Point to gain an additional Action Point.
Mitigate Damage
A character who suffers a Major Wound may spend a Luck Point to downgrade the injury to a Serious Wound. This reduces the damage taken to one Hit Point less than what would be required to inflict a Major Wound.

As written, these are, without a doubt OOC mechanics that give the player a choice, not the character. They let the player decide on altering what happened in game, to "rewrite the story" of their character. Classic Narrative Mechanic.

Now how can we take this and make it non-Narrative?
1. Eliminate Cheat Fate. (Unless you're in some setting where the characters themselves have the power to do such things, like Amber or whatever).
2. Have Desperate Effort be a character choice that also inflicts a level of Fatigue.
3. Have Mitigate Damage happen automatically as long as the character has Luck Points, without choice by the player or character.
4. Keep the amount of Luck Points hidden from the player.

Now Fate or Luck is an in-setting power that can affect the characters, but the players have no special choices that the character could not possibly make.

When you break it all down to "Who is making the choice?" it becomes trivially easy to identity OOC mechanics, and hopefully, understand why they may disrupt IC Immersion.

 

[Simlasa]

Most of the examples of narrative mechanics here so far seem to be unconsciously built around the idea of the player essentially abusing the mechanic to benefit their PC.

Is it 'abuse' just because it benefits their PC... or... I'm not quite getting your meaning. My experience of the bennies in Savage Worlds was that they were all about getting your own way vs. the dice/GM.

In most actual storygames this would be pointless, the players take turns narrating or GMing the game, the individual PC (if there is one) is less important (hence why some would say they are less immersive) and the games generally don’t involve the semi-competitive or powergaming aspect that most of the examples take for granted.

This is part of why I don't think storygames work for me unless I'm playing them with close friends and we pretty much share the idea of whatever story we want to tell. That could be fun.
But at a table with stranger, or acquaintances, it's harder to get that agreement, I think. You can easily end up with Bob 1, Bob 2, and Bob 3 all vying against each other to dominate the plotline. I've played storygames online where that sort of thing happened repeatedly... and it reminded me of some of the worse cooperative projects I worked on in grad school, where people were focused on showing off their skills for their demo reels, regardless of whether their ideas fit the larger scenario.
IMO, storygames require more trust in the creative tastes/abilities of everyone at the table than with trad games, where I mostly just need to buy in on the creative tastes of the GM. There are guys I am fine playing trad RPGs with who I'd never want to do 'cooperative storytelling' with.

There is a base assumption in storygames, often overtly stated in the rules, that the point of the game is cooperative not about the individual PC, in this way they are often completely misunderstood or the game bungled by powergamers.

I'm not sure someone is a 'powergamer' just for wanting to influence the game toward their own preferences. Like I said, I think it depends a lot on having the right group... more than RPGs that have the traditional single GM with fiat.

I wonder if this is why many of the better storygames, like Fiasco or Final Girl, are overtly built around genres where the PCs are doomed to one degree or another, perhaps this helps get the players out of the ‘survival at all costs is winning’ mindset and turns off the powergamers who shouldn’t even be at the table.

Not that Call of Cthulhu is a storygame (at least it didn't use to be) but it often has some of that same flavor... and same difficulties of Players not getting into it's (often) fatalistic tone. That's what Pulp Cthulhu is for.

 

[TristramEvans]

Most of the examples of narrative mechanics here so far seem to be unconsciously built around the idea of the player essentially abusing the mechanic to benefit their PC. Outside of FATE, which I’m unfamilar with, I can’t think of any narrative RPGs that actually allow such abuse.

Well, I specifically noted my example as "extreme", not to show the mechanics as being abused but to illustrate the point. It wasnt a commentary on storygame players.

 

[Ram]

Most of the examples of narrative mechanics here so far seem to be unconsciously built around the idea of the player essentially abusing the mechanic to benefit their PC.

Is it 'abuse' just because it benefits their PC... or... I'm not quite getting your meaning. My experience of the bennies in Savage Worlds was that they were all about getting your own way vs. the dice/GM.

The meaning is lost due to vagueness.

Which examples are you referencing? Unconsciously built by who? What is the abuse?

In most actual storygames this would be pointless, the players take turns narrating or GMing the game, the individual PC (if there is one) is less important (hence why some would say they are less immersive) and the games generally don’t involve the semi-competitive or powergaming aspect that most of the examples take for granted.

The semi-competitive or powergaming aspect that most of the examples take for granted? Which examples and what aspect applies to each?

This is part of why I don't think storygames work for me unless I'm playing them with close friends and we pretty much share the idea of whatever story we want to tell. That could be fun.
But at a table with stranger, or acquaintances, it's harder to get that agreement, I think. You can easily end up with Bob 1, Bob 2, and Bob 3 all vying against each other to dominate the plotline. I've played storygames online where that sort of thing happened repeatedly... and it reminded me of some of the worse cooperative projects I worked on in grad school, where people were focused on showing off their skills for their demo reels, regardless of whether their ideas fit the larger scenario.

But the struggle for dominance you've described isn't really unique to storygames, right? I've played in D&D games (which I am assuming from the context of the thread is by consensus a 'trad rpg') where the players struggled against each other... to steal the spotlight during particular scenes... where the players or the characters (depending on the IC / OOC gameplay at the table) struggled against each other to lead the party and, therefore, direct the 'plotline' as much as might be possible.

IMO, storygames require more trust in the creative tastes/abilities of everyone at the table than with trad games, where I mostly just need to buy in on the creative tastes of the GM. There are guys I am fine playing trad RPGs with who I'd never want to do 'cooperative storytelling' with.

Is the enhanced level of trust required in the creative tastes of players due to the fact that the storygames give the players more power of direction? You aren't saying that the trad rpgs require zero player buy in concerning the other players, right? I ask these things because it seems like there is a nuance here that could be glossed over. If it is just a question of degree, there ought to be a discussion on where the triggers are.

There is a base assumption in storygames, often overtly stated in the rules, that the point of the game is cooperative not about the individual PC, in this way they are often completely misunderstood or the game bungled by powergamers. But I actually consider most trad RPGs (Paranoia aside) cooperative games (Gygax repeatedly referred to D&D as a coop game), the powergamers looking out for the exclusive benefit of their PC are a blight at every table regardless of the system.

I'm not sure someone is a 'powergamer' just for wanting to influence the game toward their own preferences

This is not the way I've ever understood powergamer to have been used.

I would agree that most trad rpgs are built as cooperative games. Now, I don't think powergamers stand in opposition to a good cooperative game. I think a table full of powergamers could have a wonderful cooperative experience in a trad rpg. Each character finely tuned to do her job and each character's success in their role leads to a powerful party that succeeds at the challenges before it. The DM may have to tune the adventures compared to a party of characters created by less powergaming players. But both groups could have a wonderful time as long as both groups were getting what they want (finding their fun) from the game sessions.

I currently am in a D&D game with one player that is clearly more of a "powergamer" (in the sense of being prone to perfect the 'build' of a character). The powergamer is perfectly fine during game sessions. His character is powerful in battle. The powergamer wants all the other characters to be built well so he suggests builds to people when a new player comes to the game. He makes suggestions when a character levels up. Now, all of this could be annoying if the other players are opposed, but at the table the powergamer is perfectly fine to play with. At times I wish he would do more in character (like speak as his character instead of describing what his character says) but I get enough of that from the gameplay with the other characters that I am ok with how the powergamer fits in the group.

 

[robiswrong]

and certainly this is narrative mechanic

Fate doesn't work like that.

While you can declare things, there are limits on them, chief among them being that the GM has to okay them (there's other limitations that would also prevent your example, as well).

The intention of the Declaration mechanic is not to let you "win" encounters, but basically to turn "maybe" answers into "yes" answers on a limited basis.

IOW, yes, you're right, that's a shitty mechanic as you describe it.

 

[Simlasa]

But the struggle for dominance you've described isn't really unique to storygames, right?

I've heard people talk about 'hogging the spotlight' in trad games but it's not something I've seen myself. Friction between players, yes... and people who always want to play a 'precious' character of some sort... but I really can't say I've seen much competition over steering the game.
Or maybe I have but it was all done in-character, arguing over which path to take.
Then again, I'm kinda picky about who I play RPGs with, pickier than I am about WHAT we play, and prefer smaller groups (3-5) so I can assume there are trad groups where Players fight for attention even if I've not experienced it.

Is the enhanced level of trust required in the creative tastes of players due to the fact that the storygames give the players more power of direction?

Outside of a very strict railroad Players always have some power of direction but in my experience with trad games that is a discussion/argument/fight that happens primarily in-character through the PCs... not through game mechanics between the Players.
I remember a 'Mexican stand-off' between the PCs in a Deadlands game where everyone spent ALL their chips trying to force the situation. There were definitely bad feelings that spilled over into real life and I felt that it wouldn't have happened or become such a problem if it hadn't been for the intrusion of the meta-layer (I eventually quit that group, for a menagerie of reasons).

You aren't saying that the trad rpgs require zero player buy in concerning the other players, right?

Not at all. I'm cautious about who I play games with. I doubt I'd enjoy the catch-all of organized play in hobby stores. I do play a good bit online but so far I've been lucky.
I'm just saying that I'd rather have a single GM with fiat, because his creative predilections are the only ones I really need to focus on. That person is the filter/referee for the predilections of the Players. I've Played, and gotten along with, plenty of people I'd never want to have as a GM.

 

[Ladybird]

Not being snarky, but...

I've heard people talk about 'hogging the spotlight' in trad games but it's not something I've seen myself. Friction between players, yes... and people who always want to play a 'precious' character of some sort... but I really can't say I've seen much competition over steering the game.

...

Not at all. I'm cautious about who I play games with. I doubt I'd enjoy the catch-all of organized play in hobby stores. I do play a good bit online but so far I've been lucky.

...I think these might be related. I know players who are forceful personalities IRL and bring that into in-character discussions, I know players who sulk if their characters "lose" a debate or if the group decides not to go with their plans. They're not necessarily bad players, but some people just can't take losing.

 

[Simlasa]

I know players who are forceful personalities IRL and bring that into in-character discussions, I know players who sulk if their characters "lose" a debate or if the group decides not to go with their plans.

Oh yeah, I've seen a bit of that... and people who aren't invested at all and have to be coaxed into giving input. I think a good GM with fiat can help manage that, smooth it out.

 

[Baulderstone]

I think that hogging the spotlight is a problem with cooperative games, as opposed to competitive games rather than a narrative vs. traditional issue. Any kind of cooperative game, whether it is an RPG or a cooperative board game are susceptible to one person trying to run the whole thing.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think that hogging the spotlight is a problem with cooperative games, as opposed to competitive games rather than a narrative vs. traditional issue. Any kind of cooperative game, whether it is an RPG or a cooperative board game are susceptible to one person trying to run the whole thing.

True.

Also, sometimes that's just how the roleplay shakes out. Sometimes two players are the introspective scholar and the scheming thief who give ideas when asked, but basically follow the warrior and cleric types. Sometimes those same two players are a Reiklander Templar of the Order of the Fiery Heart of Sigmar and a Middenlander Templar of the White Wolf of Ulric. "Shallya have mercy".