What's the definition of "story game"?

[Baulderstone]

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".

Good point. Not every player wants to be in the spotlight. Part of being a good GM is knowing when one player is stifling the others and when that player is simply taking the initiative that the other players are granting them. It usually isn't too hard to tell the difference if you are paying attention.

 

[TristramEvans]

Good point. Not every player wants to be in the spotlight. Part of being a good GM is knowing when one player is stifling the others and when that player is simply taking the initiative that the other players are granting them. It usually isn't too hard to tell the difference if you are paying attention.

I think, yeah, ultimately this is about being a good GM (although being a good player, insofar as not being a self-absorbed twit has something to do with it.) I will say, apropos of nothing, that I generally resent when game systems try to take it upon themselves to fix problems with being a bad GM.

 

[Voros]

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.

For sure, I wasn't criticizing the examples more just thinking out loud.

Another example of an excellent storygame that relies on doomed PCs is Ten Candles.

 

[Voros]

The meaning is lost due to vagueness.

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

I was thinking of Tristam's extreme example and this example:

"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”.

In most games with narrative mechanics that kind of naked deus ex machina is blocked by the GM. In overtly storygames and/or GMless games it would be pointless as the survival of the PC (if there is one) is de-emphasized via the mechanics or intent of the game.

As the 5e DMG says regarding the optional plot points rule: 'if the first thing that comes to mind is a concern that your players would abuse this rule, you probably shouldn't use it (paraphrased from memory).'

 

[Baulderstone]

I think, yeah, ultimately this is about being a good GM (although being a good player, insofar as not being a self-absorbed twit has something to do with it.) I will say, apropos of nothing, that I generally resent when game systems try to take it upon themselves to fix problems with being a bad GM.

The same goes for systems that try and fix bad players. I'd rather use a system that assumes everyone at the table is playing in good faith, as that is the only kind of group I like to play with. Players and GMs that want to be dicks will always find some way to do it.

 

[Stevethulhu]

"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”.

In most games with narrative mechanics that kind of naked deus ex machina is blocked by the GM. In overtly storygames and/or GMless games it would be pointless as the survival of the PC (if there is one) is de-emphasized via the mechanics or intent of the game.

In a game like Houses of the Blooded, it would be a trivially easy matter for a player to make a roll with a couple of wagers on it and declare that Dave the Squire had buried a substantial sum of money and that the character just happened to know exactly where it is. And the rules of the game expressly forbid anyone from contradicting that.

There's nothing to stop the GM from deciding that there might be other complications, such as another group also after the same chest of money. But it can't be explicitly denied under the HotB rules.

 

[robiswrong]

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.

The problem is that the mechanics, at least in Fate, don't actually work that way. So it seems there's some kind of misconception at play.

If you wanted to declare something like "the dragon is asleep", there has to be something that has occurred or is true to make that a logical outcome - for instance, if you've found a way to poison the dragon's water supply, then that Declaration would probably make sense....

Which isn't that different from a "trad" game at that point. In both games, I want the dragon to be asleep, so I poison the water. The only difference is that in a "trad" game, the GM might then roll to determine if the dragon had had enough of the water, failed its save, etc. In Fate, rather than relying on chance (which you could probably do), you make a Declaration to nudge the "maybe" into a "yes".

(Technically, the rule is that a Declaration should be tied to an existing aspect. That rule exists to prevent situations where people make Declarations out of nowhere, bypassing any kind of causality).

 

[CRKrueger]

The problem is that the mechanics, at least in Fate, don't actually work that way. So it seems there's some kind of misconception at play.

If you wanted to declare something like "the dragon is asleep", there has to be something that has occurred or is true to make that a logical outcome - for instance, if you've found a way to poison the dragon's water supply, then that Declaration would probably make sense....

Which isn't that different from a "trad" game at that point. In both games, I want the dragon to be asleep, so I poison the water. The only difference is that in a "trad" game, the GM might then roll to determine if the dragon had had enough of the water, failed its save, etc. In Fate, rather than relying on chance (which you could probably do), you make a Declaration to nudge the "maybe" into a "yes".

(Technically, the rule is that a Declaration should be tied to an existing aspect. That rule exists to prevent situations where people make Declarations out of nowhere, bypassing any kind of causality).

But if the Dragon lets say has Aspects of "Dragon", "Ancient", and "Hoard", isn't kind of the point of the system that a player could somehow combine those to Declare "Well he's an ancient dragon on a hoard, of course he's asleep." Fate certainly seems like a game where playing to the genre conventions in an OOC manner can be part and parcel of the experience.

 

[robiswrong]

But if the Dragon lets say has Aspects of "Dragon", "Ancient", and "Hoard", isn't kind of the point of the system that a player could somehow combine those to Declare "Well he's an ancient dragon on a hoard, of course he's asleep." Fate certainly seems like a game where playing to the genre conventions in an OOC manner can be part and parcel of the experience.

You can't Declare your way to victory. So, no, in general I wouldn't do that.

At most, you might Declare a sleeping dragon, which shifts the focus of the scene from "kill the dragon" to "sneak around the dragon without waking it up."

This came up recently on G+:

https://plus.google.com/+GaryFurash/posts/MxhstPjAgqU

Note Fred's statement:

Deciding you have a secret back way into the compound as a story declaration is great. But it doesn't bypass all possible challenges between point A and B. It changes how you approach getting to B — maybe by giving a player some better opportunities to use the skills they're more suited to.

Think about the role that secret plan would play in fiction: "Okay, we can't possibly go for a full frontal assault here. We're outgunned, his defenses will just rip us to shreds." "Hey folks, I think I have another way in..." Which is typically NOT followed by a smash cut to where the heroes get into the vault, grab the thing, and vanish into the night. Instead, it shifts what would've been a tense and desperate firefight into a suspenseful infiltration and stealth scene.

...

Yup. I think the idea of thinking of it as "pay a fate point to create an opportunity that wasn't there before" is probably a strong perspective for you here. Opportunities aren't results, but they do present new paths and new ways to achieve the results you're after.

Now, again, this may not be your cuppa, and that's cool. But it's still not the same thing as "I declare that I win!" or other such nonsense.

Those kind of faux-examples are roughly the equivalent of people talking about old-school D&D games as everyone dying every session, or GMs randomly deciding you tripped a trap and need to save or die. While, at some level, those might be technically-legal uses of the mechanics, they're also against the spirit of the thing, and aren't what any actual advocates of the system are promoting as best play.

In actual play, I personally find Declarations to be one of the least-used mechanics. I've seen them used for things like "hey, I'm in a military base, how about we say one of these knocked over crates has some guns in it?" and things of that nature. Being in an appropriate type of bar for your background and knowing somebody there, things like that. The vast majority of Fate Points, in my experience, are used for invocations which puts them fairly close to Savage Worlds bennies, with the caveat that you actually have to tie them into what's happening in the world in some way. Compels and Declarations are definitely less frequent uses, by a long shot.

Caveat: While Fate can be played on a spectrum from "mostly traditional" to "almost pure storygame", I tend towards "mostly traditional." That said, most responses from the developers align fairly roughly with how I'd do things, so I also don't think I'm that much of an outlier.

 

[CRKrueger]

Well, I didn't assume "Sleeping" would allow an insta-gib attack, but it does seem like the type of common sense world-editing similar to "military bases have guns" provided that the Aspects are there.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - you can't Declare "a military base has crates of guns and the crate that just broke open has some" unless in addition to being on a military base, the military base actually possesses the aspect tag "military base", or something similar, right?

 

[natty bodak]

In actual play, I personally find Declarations to be one of the least-used mechanics. I've seen them used for things like "hey, I'm in a military base, how about we say one of these knocked over crates has some guns in it?" and things of that nature. Being in an appropriate type of bar for your background and knowing somebody there, things like that. The vast majority of Fate Points, in my experience, are used for invocations which puts them fairly close to Savage Worlds bennies, with the caveat that you actually have to tie them into what's happening in the world in some way. Compels and Declarations are definitely less frequent uses, by a long shot.

Caveat: While Fate can be played on a spectrum from "mostly traditional" to "almost pure storygame", I tend towards "mostly traditional." That said, most responses from the developers align fairly roughly with how I'd do things, so I also don't think I'm that much of an outlier.

I feel like I knew how to play Spirit of the Century pretty well, but lost much of that sense playing Dresden Files. Somewhere along the way there got to be waaaay too much confusion about what a compel/invoke/tag was. The text/rules were unclear and the publisher was unhelpful.

That being said, I don't feel there were ever any cases of runaway, unfettered declarations short circuiting the game. Declarations were more incidental, or tied to skill rolls or maneuvers or whatnot.

What was pretty rampant was people really stretching pretty badly to make an aspect apply to a situation so they could get a +2. In the end I was pretty fed up with the fate point economy. I gave up on the system, but I hear people say that a lot of the uncertainty about the rules/terminology (and even the fate economy problems) may have cleared up a lot.

Part of me wants to be convinced that things are better, but it would take somebody who knew what they were doing to convince me.

 

[robiswrong]

Yeah, generally you need to have an aspect available, though in a case like that you might say it's more of an implicit aspect.

The bigger point there is that you're not going to use any kind of declaration to automatically win, which is what's often brought up as an example.

Really, it'd be used anywhere you'd ask the GM "hey, because <x>, wouldn't <y> make sense?" Except instead of rolling a die, the answer is "spend a Fate Point and sure".

What was pretty rampant was people really stretching pretty badly to make an aspect situation so they could get a +2. In the end I was pretty fed up with the fate point economy. I gave up on the system, but I hear people say that a lot of the uncertainty about the rules/terminology (and even the fate economy problems) may have cleared up a lot.

That can be a thing. I tell players to describe how the aspect is helping them, in a "show don't tell" way - like, if this were a movie, what would we see? But mostly, I don't worry about stretches *too* much, because the real limiter is the availability of Fate Points anyway.

I hate the phrase "Fate Point Economy", as it's usually tied to this idea that Fate Points should flow like water. I don't do that. I'm not going to go so far as to say it's *wrong*, but it's directly counter to how I enjoy the system, and I don't think I'd enjoy it much played in that way... and, again, comments from the developers generally line up with my interpretation.

Maybe I should open a Fate discussion thread.

 

[natty bodak]

Maybe I should open a Fate discussion thread.

I'll save further Fate discussion for that thread!

 

[TristramEvans]

The problem is that the mechanics, at least in Fate, don't actually work that way. .

Well, it would be a problem if I was giving a review of Fate. I was just illustrating the difference between a narrative mechanic and a traditional mechanic.

 

[Endless Flight]

 

[CRKrueger]

Maybe I should open a Fate discussion thread.

I think so. I think FATE 3.0 has always been the game that "traditional" players have the most problem with.

 

[robiswrong]

Well, it would be a problem if I was giving a review of Fate. I was just illustrating the difference between a narrative mechanic and a traditional mechanic.

Nah. I still think it's a problem when you use an example that the people who actually *use* those mechanics all agree isn't actually representative.

If I were somehow on the "TRAD GAMES BAD!" bandwagon (I'm not) and tried to claim something stupid like "a narrative game mechanic is 'I walk down the stairs.' A traditional game mechanic is 'I roll DEX to walk down the stairs, fail, and break my neck'", you'd be right to point out that I was being dumb and didn't know what the hell I was talking about.

 

[TristramEvans]

Nah. I still think it's a problem when you use an example that the people who actually *use* those mechanics all agree isn't actually representative.

If I were somehow on the "TRAD GAMES BAD!" bandwagon (I'm not) and tried to claim something stupid like "a narrative game mechanic is 'I walk down the stairs.' A traditional game mechanic is 'I roll DEX to walk down the stairs, fail, and break my neck'", you'd be right to point out that I was being dumb and didn't know what the hell I was talking about.

Yes, that would be a bad analogy, because you posed one example that isn't a narrative mechanic, and a second that is a completely different example. If you'd said "a narrative game is a mechanic where a player says " I spend a Story point and declare now that my character is going to fall down some stairs and break his neck", whereas a traditional mechanic is "I roll DEX to walk down the stairs, fail, and the GM determines that I've broken my neck," it wouldn't matter that the situation described is stupid, it would distinctly show the difference between a narrative approach to roleplaying and a traditional approach to the same event.

Which was, y'know, sort of the point. It wasn a example of FATE gameplay, it was an example of a narrative mechanic.

 

[Trippy]

For me, the distinction between a 'Roleplaying Game' and a 'Storytelling Game' is mostly one of emphasis.

You can tell stories with D&D for example, but it's set up and approach emphasises playing a role - established by making choices in character generation, with set Attributes and Abilities that define what you can or can't do. It's actually not that important, in the context of the rules, whether you end up with an actual coherent story (with structure, themes, etc), but if you do it makes for a more satisfying, rounded experience for all involved. People naturally structure events narratively in their own minds anyway - storytelling is an important cognitive ability in terms of our own memory of events and understanding - which is probably why narration is naturally born out if what can be basically just a bunch of random rolls. But there isn't an actual requirement to tell a story in order to play D&D - you could just play it as a series of unconnected skirmishes if you like.

On the other side of the coin, you could point to a game like The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which puts a lot more emphasis on storytelling (quite literally), but where there are at least cursory roles that you play (18th Century drunk noblemen sitting round a table). Again, the actual storytelling element takes so much president in terms of the game's structures and rules, that it is perfectly workable for players to not play a role at all (there are no character stats or sheets to refer to), but by getting into character it, again, makes for a more rounded experience.

Different games - different emphasis. You could put it on a scale, I guess. Personally, I find the old 'Indie' vs 'Old School' dichotomy yesterday's news. Individual games have their own approach and innovations and most games are really just a balance of different approaches to suit the needs of the gameplay desired. The rest is really just a call to a tribal identity, in many respects, although it is worth reminding ourselves that the roleplaying hobby was born out of wargaming, so it's unsurprising that some older games take a more tactical approach in their rules than the more contemporary ones.

 

[CRKrueger]

But there isn't an actual requirement to tell a story in order to play D&D - you could just play it as a series of unconnected skirmishes if you like.

Of course you could also play a years-long campaign from an IC immersive roleplaying point of view and also not be telling a story.

so it's unsurprising that some older games take a more tactical approach in their rules than the more contemporary ones.

WOIN and Fragged Empire are just two examples of contemporary "tactical" games and 4e, not all that long ago, was one of the most tactical RPGs ever written. In fact for most of the 21st century, the two most popular RPGs, D&D and Pathfinder were much more tactical than any version of D&D from the 20th century.

 

[Trippy]

Of course you could also play a years-long campaign from an IC immersive roleplaying point of view and also not be telling a story.


WOIN and Fragged Empire are just two examples of contemporary "tactical" games and 4e, not all that long ago, was one of the most tactical RPGs ever written. In fact for most of the 21st century, the two most popular RPGs, D&D and Pathfinder were much more tactical than any version of D&D from the 20th century.

In the case of D&D4th edition, personally, I put this down to a flawed design philosophy - it's why the game wasn't successful.

In the case of the others, it's just a case of diversity in the market. Some gamers prefer that approach, and accordingly some games are designed to meet that. We have a very large diversity in the gaming hobby these days, with lots of different tastes. The market caters for that, accordingly.

However, the general rise of 'storytelling' within roleplaying games has been developing from some time in the 1980s, and the progression of this cause largely stems from a desire to evolve away from the wargaming roots of the hobby - in my opinion of course. So more 'theatre of the mind' and less miniatures; more advice about how to construct stories and less about combat strategy, and so on.

 

[Ram]

But there isn't an actual requirement to tell a story in order to play D&D - you could just play it as a series of unconnected skirmishes if you like.

The sounds like there should be a discussion about "What's the definition of "war game"?" and "What's the definition of "traditional game"?" Kind of makes me feel like, otherwise we are picking on story games.

In the case of D&D4th edition, personally, I put this down to a flawed design philosophy - it's why the game wasn't successful.

In the case of the others, it's just a case of diversity in the market. Some gamers prefer that approach, and accordingly some games are designed to meet that. We have a very large diversity in the gaming hobby these days, with lots of different tastes. The market caters for that, accordingly.

A few questions...

Are there other RPG publishers that, using simple profit comparisons, would not trade away their best seller for the success of the D&D4e?

If, in the case of the other products, the diversity of the market is the explanation, why is that rationale not applicable to 4E? Gamers with a preference for tactical games and gamers with an aversion to tactical games are simply different factions in the gaming hobby.

What is the "it" that you are identifying as made 4E not successful? Tactical game mechanics?

 

[Baulderstone]

Are there other RPG publishers that, using simple profit comparisons, would not trade away their best seller for the success of the D&D4e?

The world doesn't work on simple profit comparisons. D&D 4E was a game that splintered the D&D fanbase and allowed Paizo to steal an enormous amount of their customers away. When you have to explain that to Hasbro, "Yeah, but our sales numbers are still better than RuneQuest" just isn't going to cut it. Success is measured in increasing your customer base, not cutting it in half and allowing a competitor to flourish.

 

[Trippy]

The sounds like there should be a discussion about "What's the definition of "war game"?" and "What's the definition of "traditional game"?" Kind of makes me feel like, otherwise we are picking on story games.


A few questions...

Are there other RPG publishers that, using simple profit comparisons, would not trade away their best seller for the success of the D&D4e?

If, in the case of the other products, the diversity of the market is the explanation, why is that rationale not applicable to 4E? Gamers with a preference for tactical games and gamers with an aversion to tactical games are simply different factions in the gaming hobby.

What is the "it" that you are identifying as made 4E not successful? Tactical game mechanics?

Well a war game is definable too - its a strategy game of some sort that in some way simulates military operations or conflicts. In a war-game you basically play against an opponent - be that another player or just some sort of simulated adversary. In terms of 'traditional game', it's any game that passes on particular customs. I don't think it really fits as part of a dichotomy against 'narrative' games. All games can be innovative.

Most RPG publishers do not have the brand recognition and distribution channels that D&D has, and so comparisons with D&D4 don't really hold. In terms of it's own targets, by all accounts, it wasn't very successful. The 4E development spent too much time focussing on what a small group of gamers were vocal about prioritising, but didn't give enough heed to what a whole segment of 'quiet' gamers really wanted. 5E got it's marketing and development right, and listened more carefully, which is why it has been, again by all accounts, much more successful. The specific 'it' may vary from gamer to gamer, but the general gist is that 4E did not provide enough variation in gameplay away from tactical miniatures and strategic gameplay. People argued that it was more focussed on a particular game-style -but it wasn't the style that many gamers wanted.

 

[Ram]

Well a war game is definable too - its a strategy game of some sort that in some way simulates military operations or conflicts. In a war-game you basically play against an opponent - be that another player or just some sort of simulated adversary. In terms of 'traditional game', it's any game that passes on particular customs. I don't think it really fits as part of a dichotomy against 'narrative' games. All games can be innovative.

The point about defining the other categories of games was in response to your reference that one could just play D&D like a wargame. Are you playing the rpg D&D if you are playing a "wargame"? (Hence the need for more definitions.)

I have not been reading "trad game" in this thread to mean "any game that passes on particular customs". I have been reading in this thread the use of "trad games" as being offset from narrative games. You disagree, which is fine, but don't ignore the use by others because of your disagreement. Now, the inclusion of "trad games" here is not needed for the particular point...

If one uses the D&D rules to play it like a wargame, is one playing the D&D rpg we call "D&D"? I don't think so. Given how deeply folks feel about these games, it would surprise me greatly to learn that there are rpg players that are cool with the wargame group being "in" but the story game group being "out".

The world doesn't work on simple profit comparisons. D&D 4E was a game that splintered the D&D fanbase and allowed Paizo to steal an enormous amount of their customers away. When you have to explain that to Hasbro, "Yeah, but our sales numbers are still better than RuneQuest" just isn't going to cut it. Success is measured in increasing your customer base, not cutting it in half and allowing a competitor to flourish.

I will suggest (though it isn't necessary for the main point) that stockholders and stock markets around the world suggest that, in fact, economic theory relies heavily on profits. If you can meaningfully increase your profits despite cutting your customer base you do so... you see companies doing exactly that when they raise prices knowing that it will reduce sales... but they've calculated that the increased from the ongoing sales offset the losses. Consider the example of Netflix after they reaped the rewards of the big price hike a few years back and how cautiously they've calculated price increases since to take into consideration the churn. Consider the practice in modern video game business of "whale hunting". (Note that I never claimed, and despite highlighting how important profits are I still haven't, that profits were the only factor that would be considered in the real world.) Again, this is not critical to the point I was making which was more about the inconsistent use of standards between others in the rpg industry and 4E...

Most RPG publishers do not have the brand recognition and distribution channels that D&D has, and so comparisons with D&D4 don't really hold.

I clearly disagree. The fact that one business is more successful than another does not make them incomparable. Again, this is, however, a tangential point to the point raised by the questions in my post...

In terms of it's own targets, by all accounts, it wasn't very successful. The 4E development spent too much time focussing on what a small group of gamers were vocal about prioritising, but didn't give enough heed to what a whole segment of 'quiet' gamers really wanted. 5E got it's marketing and development right, and listened more carefully, which is why it has been, again by all accounts, much more successful. The specific 'it' may vary from gamer to gamer, but the general gist is that 4E did not provide enough variation in gameplay away from tactical miniatures and strategic gameplay. People argued that it was more focussed on a particular game-style -but it wasn't the style that many gamers wanted.

Your quote made me ask what your "it" was. You referred to flawed design philosophy and then said "it" was why the game wasn't successful. So the question is what your "it" was when you wrote your post, not what the general gist is! In any event, this was to point out...

On the one hand you allowed that diversity in the market was the reason why products do what they do... on the other hand you stated it was flawed design philosophy in reference to 4E. I asked the questions to highlight the inconsistencies. I get that 4E is an easy target because the golden goose didn't lay the perfect egg... but consistency in evaluation is an important goal! Diversity in the market place explains the results of 4E just as well as it does for other publishers who make niche products. That WotC wanted their normal serving and not a smaller piece of the pie is true, no doubt. But if diversity in the market is a factor to explain a products performance, talking about how a feature of a product (like its tactical nature) which part of the market wants and part of the market does not... is talking about the impact that the diverse market had on a specific product.

I feel compelled to point out that I do not currently play 4E, but I did play 4E when it came out. I played it at the same time as Pathfinder... so many people were playing 4E that it was unavoidable. I am not a strident supporter of one edition over another, they all have their pros and cons.

 

[TristramEvans]

The point about defining the other categories of games was in response to your reference that one could just play D&D like a wargame. Are you playing the rpg D&D if you are playing a "wargame"? (Hence the need for more definitions.)

Well, OD&D bills itself a "wargame"; the distinction between RPGs and Wargames came later, because of much the same situation in regards to traditional RPGs and Storygames. Basically a bunch of whiny wargamers complaining about D&D games taking over their conventions.

 

[Trippy]

The point about defining the other categories of games was in response to your reference that one could just play D&D like a wargame. Are you playing the rpg D&D if you are playing a "wargame"? (Hence the need for more definitions.)

I have not been reading "trad game" in this thread to mean "any game that passes on particular customs". I have been reading in this thread the use of "trad games" as being offset from narrative games. You disagree, which is fine, but don't ignore the use by others because of your disagreement. Now, the inclusion of "trad games" here is not needed for the particular point...

If one uses the D&D rules to play it like a wargame, is one playing the D&D rpg we call "D&D"? I don't think so. Given how deeply folks feel about these games, it would surprise me greatly to learn that there are rpg players that are cool with the wargame group being "in" but the story game group being "out".


I will suggest (though it isn't necessary for the main point) that stockholders and stock markets around the world suggest that, in fact, economic theory relies heavily on profits. If you can meaningfully increase your profits despite cutting your customer base you do so... you see companies doing exactly that when they raise prices knowing that it will reduce sales... but they've calculated that the increased from the ongoing sales offset the losses. Consider the example of Netflix after they reaped the rewards of the big price hike a few years back and how cautiously they've calculated price increases since to take into consideration the churn. Consider the practice in modern video game business of "whale hunting". (Note that I never claimed, and despite highlighting how important profits are I still haven't, that profits were the only factor that would be considered in the real world.) Again, this is not critical to the point I was making which was more about the inconsistent use of standards between others in the rpg industry and 4E...


I clearly disagree. The fact that one business is more successful than another does not make them incomparable. Again, this is, however, a tangential point to the point raised by the questions in my post...



Your quote made me ask what your "it" was. You referred to flawed design philosophy and then said "it" was why the game wasn't successful. So the question is what your "it" was when you wrote your post, not what the general gist is! In any event, this was to point out...

On the one hand you allowed that diversity in the market was the reason why products do what they do... on the other hand you stated it was flawed design philosophy in reference to 4E. I asked the questions to highlight the inconsistencies. I get that 4E is an easy target because the golden goose didn't lay the perfect egg... but consistency in evaluation is an important goal! Diversity in the market place explains the results of 4E just as well as it does for other publishers who make niche products. That WotC wanted their normal serving and not a smaller piece of the pie is true, no doubt. But if diversity in the market is a factor to explain a products performance, talking about how a feature of a product (like its tactical nature) which part of the market wants and part of the market does not... is talking about the impact that the diverse market had on a specific product.

I feel compelled to point out that I do not currently play 4E, but I did play 4E when it came out. I played it at the same time as Pathfinder... so many people were playing 4E that it was unavoidable. I am not a strident supporter of one edition over another, they all have their pros and cons.

I'll quickly just say now that I'm sitting in an airport waiting for a long haul flight, so I'm not going to have much I can say right now - indeed for the next couple of days!

Tristram made the main point though, which is that OD&D was billed as a war-game from the beginning. It was a miniature based game which had the innovation of single players representing individuals rather than squads or units. There was no need for telling a story, but this particular innovation meant that players started to invest more personality and interaction with their characters. The story element basically grew out of this, as players wanted to tell stories about their characters.

I reject the notion of any dichotomy between 'narrative' and 'traditional', as you probably know, and in this context, I hold that 'Traditional' RPGs aren't really a thing. Games can be new or old, with all sorts of influences and approaches to play - but there is no categorical difference in gameplay between a lot of them. The notion that a game is 'traditional' insofar that it just does the same conventional stuff and that, by default a 'story game' can't in fact be traditional in its own conventions too, is nonsense to me. All RPGs evolve under different influences - which is why D&D5 is quite different to OD&D. Moreover, I don't see an inherent conflict in a game that occupies multiple styles of play - which is what GNS theory purported.

In the case of D&D4E, the flaw in the design philosophy was not to suggest that it was not put together into a coherent and playable game, but rather that the philosophy behind the game was that is should be designed to play in just one specific way. I think, ultimately, this is why it wasn't as successful as Wizards hoped it would be, and indeed, why it ended up being a source of division in the gaming community at the time.

 

[CRKrueger]

In the case of D&D4E, the flaw in the design philosophy was not to suggest that it was not put together into a coherent and playable game, but rather that the philosophy behind the game was that is should be designed to play in just one specific way. I think, ultimately, this is why it wasn't as successful as Wizards hoped it would be, and indeed, why it ended up being a source of division in the gaming community at the time.

Which brings us back to the most important defining element of games - mechanics. 4e's highly tactical mechanics, which were also frequently of a dissociated nature, were omnipresent, as Brendan mentioned, they were inescapable. They narrowed the acceptable range of playstyles that the game could support.

Similarly, RPGs with narrative/storygame mechanics sometimes suffer from the same issue. By focusing on making a game primarily for a single playstyle, they render the game less playable by those with different playstyles. The more core and inescapable the narrative mechanics become, the more the game differentiates itself from games with a wider playstyle range.

Traveller may not possess any mechanics specifically to aid story creation, but if you enjoy creating or telling stories at the same time as you roleplay, it's not actively hindering you either.

 

[xanther]

...
In the case of D&D4E, the flaw in the design philosophy was not to suggest that it was not put together into a coherent and playable game, but rather that the philosophy behind the game was that is should be designed to play in just one specific way. I think, ultimately, this is why it wasn't as successful as Wizards hoped it would be, and indeed, why it ended up being a source of division in the gaming community at the time.

I'd agree with that. They catered extensively to a sub-set of their customs in a manner that ignored the rest; and they lost a lot of them.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think a better distinction than "Traditional" or anything else, is "Modeular Design" vs "Exception-Based Design", where D&D represents a modular system where rules are created individually and may be inserted or discarded into the system as circumstance dictate, whereas an exception-based system uses a universal mechanic to which there are a few specific rules that interact with or alter this in specific ways.

 

[Voros]

The old wargamer vs. D&D split is often forgotten these days. There was some overlap of course but there is some cultural irony in the use of 'grognard' to indicate an older RPG player these days as wasn't it many of the original grognards who rejected D&D and even fantasy wargames?

From what I've read in Peterson the split was emphasized even moreso by the rapid embrace of OD&D by the more-literary and hippy sf/fantasy fandom. Many of those players (who included Bruce Sterling, Perrin, Sandy Peterson and Stafford) started to change the game immediately, often into something more focused on elements of character, complex settings and RPing.

Seems to me there has always been some tension between these two streams of the hobby (wargame vs. 'storygame,') although the net intially seems to have exacerbated a greater sense of tribalism than in the past. Although I notice such distinctions seem of much less importance to 'younger' players and designers in the OSR and the 'indie' RPG spheres, who weren't around for the decade-old battles and are often borrowing ideas and setting material freely from each other.