So, I've heard the term "storytelling game" used a bit around here, usually in a negative light. But what exactly is a storytelling game? Why do they have a stigma associated with them? Or is it just a case of pic related?
>>46637958
Some people believe that RPGs should have just as much of a 'game' component as a role playing one. So when games pop up with rules-lite books that emphasize narrative over stats or systems, they see that as defeating the purpose of RPGs.
>>46638060
Basically this and OP pic related.
>>46638288
/thread
>>46637958
He descended stairs of thickened smoke, down into the land where the magnetfolk dwell.
It's what White Wolf calls their RPGs. I actually like them a lot though. With WoD at least, the one roll for combat resolution and really simple approach for everything made the game run quickly and without confusion as opposed to the stupid shit that D&D emphasizes. Sure there are some serious balance issues, but there is nothing wrong with the concept. Give them a shot before you pass judgement.
>>46638838
By the time winter arrives, they are not producing pearls; rather, they are soaked in a black lemon vinaigrette.
>>46637958
Well, there is the "Storytelling Game System", which is technically the name of the game style in the newer World of Darkness books. Most people don't use that term, though, and the two are (mostly) unrelated.
In general, storytelling games and storytelling systems do not involve generating a challenging situation or dangerous scenario for the PCs to make their way through. Rather, they tend to give all players some narration power, encourage the players to bring up dangerous (in the story context) situations and resolve them. The main distinction is that non-storytelling games tend to have a threat of TPK or character death due to bad rolls, while storytelling games tend to not feature character death at all unless the player intends it to happen.
Some people don't like it because the game systems can be a "everyone wins, here's your prize" situation. Also, even though some systems feature characters losing and negative things happening - just not character death - some players dislike taking character death off the table. "Why would the character care if they're not in danger?" (The answer is, other things can be.)
Also, some players are naturally conflict-oriented. Storytelling games tend to give a lot of game control to the players, and so a player can easily resolve any conflict with the abilities granted to the player (although not necessarily to the character). Some players dislike the disconnect. Some players play it as a competitive game, and so dislike having the ability to suddenly create reinforcements or suddenly cause the BBEG to trip with their player points.
>>46638060
Has /v/ really washed over into /tg/?
>>46639235
If you have a competent GM, he's a decent storyteller no matter the system and you shouldn't need mechanics to cater to that approach.
>>46639051
Singles in your area are becoming, doubles, triples, quaduples, myriad. You are being outpaced, surrounded. There is a mountain of its own.
>>46637958
Shits on /tg/ are always trying to use semantic arguments to get things they don't like banned.
Some shits think rules light games are lame, and thus, argue for hours and hours about how rules light things aren't actually RPGs, and thus shouldn't be on /tg/.
>>46639543
Are they an RPG? I disagree.
Are they /tg/? Well, they're played around a table, usually with dice of some kind, and there's an element of roleplaying involved. I'd rule they're /tg/.
>>46639562
>I disagree that this game where you play a role is an rpg
>even though it has all the strict definitional traits of an RPG, in addition to all the cultural traits, like stats, rounds, and etcetera
see, this right here is the problem. People like you who do not have that second half of your statement.
Just to chime in on the subject, I think a reason a lot of people don't like storytelling games or the games that purport their goals of putting the fiction ahead of 'cumbersome rules' is due to the fact that games that do this have difficulty retaining any real tension in a storyline, and subconsciously people notice that very quickly.
Tension in a story comes from the fact that there are hard rules in life that one simply cannot break. The RPG is meant to reflect the fact that these rules exists by placing hard definitions on what can and cannot be done. One can swing a sword, but one cannot do it well without training. One cannot cast spells unless one has magical abilities and is of the appropriate skill level in casting.
By setting the rules in place, a story can be created from the odds that are placed against the players and made all the more better when they finally succeed. This is a large reason why some of the more well-loved stories on the internet are the ones where someone played WITH the rules or defied them against all odds. Such as the story of the guy who rolled three natural 1s in a row and killed the BBEG and himself, or the story of Edgardo who played against all of the rules.
One of the better things that makes stories like Shane the Coward so much better is the fact that Shane was, objectively, a weakling. Any one party-member could have destroyed him, but he played by the rules of the game to give himself that edge that makes the players succeed so often.
Storyteller games are often passed around less often, and overall, I see very few replies to them, and many people I've talked to say that unless they tend to skip over them. Why? Because when the game encourages the GM or ST to give the players narrative control to a point of changing the story, suddenly the tension is lost.
"Wow, that fight with the werewolves was tough. . .except in the back of my head, I know that they only one because the ST let them. . ."
>>46639913
anon, literally all tabletop games have no real tension because players and DMs can manipulate rules whenever they like.
Doubly so because RPG combat, especially DND style combat, is devoid of tension. It's a simple mechanical exchange that is honestly pretty boring.
The interesting stuff happens far away from combat.
Its the same reason why most people will disagree about whether or not you should fudge your rolls behind a DM screen, or at the very least EVER tell your players. When the audience of the story knows that the world will not kill them, or have enough consistency to punish them when appropriate, the story loses the tension it had before, and it falls to the wayside.
My opinion on the subject is that the rules have never been there to impose the story. Rather, they help to facilitate it and objectify what exactly are the odds to the players. So by playing a game that is more lax with the rules is fine, but it's still the DM's job to state what the hard limits of this world are and what can and cannot be done and to remain consistent.
Which is why, with great DM's, we usually get that one story of how the players foresaw a plothole and managed to weasel that into sure-fire victory for themselves. Because the world remained consistent. Such as the story of the Fisherman and corruption.
>>46639913
>>46639965
honestly, most RPG combat can be replaced with a simple "roll a die and if it is low enough you lose", with nothing lost other than the feeling of character progression through bigger numbers.
>>46639965
>>46639998
I disagree. If your DM remains consistent and the players aren't being handheld, there are many accounts of interesting battles I think the fact that you two feel that combat is the least interesting aspect means that perhaps your DM should be increasing the difficulty for you guys. Perhaps speak up to him about that?
>>46640018
Difficult combats are MORE boring, anon.
RPG combat mechanics are dry at best, and ususally nothing higher than simple computer work.
And they tend to slow down the pacing of any story to GLACIAL.
>>46639235
>Has /v/ really washed over into /tg/?
I wouldn't call it /v/ after all older RPGs tended to foster the idea that the GM was "the enemy" and activly out to get you so you had to have concrete game mechanics to "beat" him, or at least his dungeon
>>46640049
I'll be honest, that sounds more like a user issue than a game issue, and doesn't reflect the tone of my games at all. Have you tried lending more descriptions to your games?
>>46639965
>especially DND style combat
>TFW Combat and Tactics
Feels good to be a 2hu.
>>46640085
See, you say you want more description, but then say go for hard fights.
Hard fights are actively antithetical to description or anything out of the ordinary. Not only does the character have no time to do anything out of the ordinary or with flare, because they have to operate tactically soundly, but the PLAYERS also don't have time for that, because the combat will already take an hour.
>>46640120
In fact, now that I think about it, the only combats I have seen that ever were interesting were out of rule-light systems.
Because you don't take 100 -1 modifiers for kicking the table to trip the guy.
>>46639913
>except in the back of my head, I know that they only one because the ST let them. . ."
honestly I never really bought into that, in any game the players only win because the GM lets them. If the GM really wants to win that badly then there's nothing stopping them from having the game open with
>"So you all meet in a tavern.... THEN SUDDENLY AN ELDER DRAGON TEARS OPEN THE ROOF AND SPEWS FORTH A HELLISH GOUT OF FLAME. Everyone take 20d8, save for half.
He'll problay never have a group again after that sure, but that's an exagerated example. Point is since the GM usually can do anything by definition he's pulling his punches and "letting" the players win.
>>46639965
>>46640049
>literally all tabletop games have no real tension because players and DMs can manipulate rules whenever they like.
Not whenever they like. Do it too often and too blatantly and you'll find yourself without players.
Plus, plenty of DMs like myself just roll shit right in front, no need for DM shield. If you get fucked it's your fault, or bad luck.
>Doubly so because RPG combat, especially DND style combat, is devoid of tension. It's a simple mechanical exchange that is honestly pretty boring.
Of course its boring if you only play with DMs that are too afraid to kill your characters.
>Difficult combats are MORE boring, anon.
>RPG combat mechanics are dry at best, and ususally nothing higher than simple computer work.
>And they tend to slow down the pacing of any story to GLACIAL.
The point of roleplaying games isn't JUST to tell a story, anon. There would be no need for rules if that was the case. Not to mention it seems like you played D&D 3.x once and never ever played anything else.
>>46640120
>>46640156
>Hard fights are actively antithetical to description or anything out of the ordinary. Not only does the character have no time to do anything out of the ordinary or with flare, because they have to operate tactically soundly, but the PLAYERS also don't have time for that, because the combat will already take an hour.
>Because you don't take 100 -1 modifiers for kicking the table to trip the guy.
And I agree with the other guy, this seems like a user problem, as in, you played with shitty players, on shitty systems, and formed a shitty uninformed opinion. Even D&D and its various editions play different then what you describe.
>>46640171
honestly, I can't get invested in a game where I DON'T know the ST is letting me win.
Because if the ST isn't letting me win, that means I am being hit by the strongest systems at all times and am basically an NPC.
>>46640120
I really disagree on every aspect of your post honestly. Hard fights can be quite descriptive, and the two are not antithetical to each other whatsoever. I think you're combining "descriptive" with "comical" or even "over-the-top". Characters have plenty of time to do things that are out of hte ordinary, and my group does so all the time.
Like, honestly, not a single part of your post I can agree with or is reflective of my general gaming experiences.
>>46640171
>Point is since the GM usually can do anything by definition he's pulling his punches and "letting" the players win.
That's only if you take a stance that the GM himself is an enemy, and not merely your eyes and ears into the fantasy world your table is set up upon. You can say things like "Then the wizard launches a meteor swarm at you at level 1 and you're all dead", but then that's still not being consistent. How did the enemy wizard know you, know you were a threat, and openly decided to attack you even though that might make him a target of a local army, what with all the casualties on the sides.
That's not really maintaining a consistent world, and is really just the DM being a bully.
>>46640210
Sorry anon, but the rules-heavy system boring combat problem is real.
Why ever do anything other than what your primary ability is? The dice roll is so small, and there are so many negatives for any out of the ordinary action, that doing anything else is kind of dumb at best.
>>46640171
>Point is since the GM usually can do anything by definition he's pulling his punches and "letting" the players win.
You might say the same of all games.
If you're an idiot.
That's like saying "Puzzles are not challenging! They're designed to be beaten!".
>>46640237
I'm the first anon you replied to, and I have to agree with >>46640210
It honestly sounds like you played 3.PF just once with a really, REALLY bad DM and are basing all of your opinions on that.
>>46640227
Anon, tabletop combat is boring as shit.
Making the characters can be fun, and getting them TO combat is fun, but once you are there there's little you can do in any kind of rules heavy system other than what you pre-set yourself to do.
>>46640237
>Sorry anon, but the rules-heavy system boring combat problem is real.
That's why the most popular system on the market is a rules heavy system focusing on combat, right? Oh wait, it looks like literally everyone on earth is able to find combats interesting except you.
>Why ever do anything other than what your primary ability is? The dice roll is so small, and there are so many negatives for any out of the ordinary action, that doing anything else is kind of dumb at best.
You are literally, actually literally, wrong in every fucking way. It's like you had one bad game of D&D 3.0 (not even 3.5) and decided all D&D and all rules-heavy systems were like that.
>>46640269
I mean, you can say that all you like. My table and I and everyone else I've played with will disagree with you.
Have you tried playing with a new group? Maybe find a DM that's a little more descriptive in his fights than you're used to. And ESPECIALLY avoid pathfinder groups. Maybe try 5e.
>>46640270
>It is popular so your points are invalid
Anon, people eat up things that are based primarily around combat but have boring combat.
Look at the entire MMO market.
The primary reason for combat in these games is to have something to advance your character and keep up the little reward circle.
>>46639913
>>46639965
Yes and No.
On the one hand, there is a distinct difference between rules allowing some actions and needing to "cheat" or break the rules to allow some actions. If someone is telling the story about a D&D campaign where, in the middle of a difficult fight going against the PCs, all the enemies suddenly dropped dead and all the PCs were suddenly healed to full, most people would cry foul at DM handholding. Or if the 1st level Wizard started casting Prismatic Walls out of their nonmagical quarterstaff, then people hearing that story would start asking questions. But if that happened in a freeform RP, then the main complaint would be "weak storytelling". There is more tension, at least in one sense, with the D&D situation, because someone playing D&D will know that there aren't any actions that will suddenly save a character outside what the rules stipulate.
On the other hand, the tension found from high-risk situations isn't the only sense of enjoyment. Players may enjoy telling a particular story, or interacting with other characters, or doing several other things rather than dramatic combat tension. Also, while most storytelling games disallow the GM from killing a player character or the PC's allies, other NPCs are fully on the table. The PCs may not be risking their characters with a set of rolls, but what about the town full of NPCs they've come to enjoy? That's frequently as much (or more) tension than just D&D death.
It also tends to assume a low level of imagination from the players in the game. Why is it that a player can't feel tension when they still have the capability to save their character? Is the player's imagination so poor that they can't feel the stress unless they're gambling in the system? And what's more, is the tension better or worse when the player knows a character could be saved, but ends up dying anyways? (This borders on the narrative enjoyment, as well.)
>>46640289
I've had good success playing systems that don't have a primarily combat-based focus, yes.
And with GMs that know to speed up combat extensively in systems that do involve combat.
When my group wants to play combat, we play a wargame.
Or a videogame, which as a whole have generally topped tabletop in every way when it comes to rules-heavy tactical or strategic gameplay.
>>46640303
>The primary reason for combat in these games is to have something to advance your character and keep up the little reward circle.
Considering more and more people play with the milestone rule in effect and most games don't go past level 12?
That honestly sounds like you're retroactively trying to come up with a reason why people like something you don't personally understand.
>>46640326
The fact that you think that wargame or video game combat could replace a really well done TRPG combat is incredibly telling as a whole what your experiences were like.
>>46640326
I think this might be the reason combat in rule heavy tabletops is so boring. EVERYTHING they do is done better by video games. Only when you have less rules do you start gaining the ability to do things videogames do not.
>>46640237
>>46640269
>>46640303
>and there are so many negatives for any out of the ordinary action, that doing anything else is kind of dumb at best.
Wow could you be more wrong?
there are no negatives for extraordinary actions in D&D. In fact, there are rules to increase your chances of doing cool things, like action points. Anon, I urge you to like, maybe watch a group playing D&D like critical roll, or read some plays like "b/x misadventures" because the way you think D&D works is pretty wrong.
>>46640339
Anon, well-done TRPG combat is generally low on rules.
If it's a heavily rule-based thing with little out-of-the-system play, then it probably can be done better by a vidya.
>>46640362
>well-done TRPG combat is generally low on rules.
Not really.
>>46640379
Then why is it that people like
>>46640349
claim that rules-light based stunting systems and methods to give players additional narrative control to do cool things make combat much more interesting?
>>46640407
Where did he say rules lite?
>>46640417
Giving your players action points to do cool things and take over a narrative is a rules light concept, anon.
Or, to be technically correct, a more narrative than gamist idea.
>>46640407
>claim that rules-light based stunting systems and methods to give players additional narrative control to do cool things make combat much more interesting?
I'm not claiming that though. I'm saying your understanding of D&D is so wrong, it's like you only played it with the worst gm of all time.
Just because it's rules heavy doesn't mean it can't have stunt-like rules.
>>46640445
anon, the heavier-rules editions of these things did not have stunting systems.
Or, their stunting systems were a paltry +2 bonus compared to the numerous -2 bonuses they would accrue through any stunt.
>>46640441
What >>46640445
said.
He actually went on to recommend you play D&D, which are all rules-heavy.
Action Points are also not a narrative rules-light concept. They are heavily USED in such systems, yes, but are not a rules-light concept.
>>46640468
Anon, action points are inherently rules-light, as they replace chapters and chapters of tables and graphs for special situations.
>>46640464
>compared to the numerous -2 bonuses they would accrue through any stunt.
Okay, I'm getting angry now.
please, please get on your head.
These penalties you think exist for any non-standard thing?
THEY
DO
NOT
EXIST
IT WAS ALL YOUR SHIT DM
if you are trolling, you got me.
>>46640464
>the heavier-rules editions of these things did not have stunting systems.
Even 1e would encourage you to give your players bonuses for doing dramatic or intelligent maneuvers during battle, which intrinsically increases the amount you're describing.
Even when you say stuff like
>action points are inherently rules-light, as they replace chapters and chapters of tables and graphs for special situations
That doesn't make it true, or even reflective of most situations. You're literally only describing Pathfinder, and even that isn't really all that true at all.
Seriously, though, the conversation is growing old, and I can only tell you so many times to give pick up a new edition of D&D and actually PLAY it with a different group.
Feel free to respond, but I'm bored of the thread, so I probably won't be here.
>>46640501
anon, at the very least there's the -4 for any improvised use of things under normal improvised weapon rules.
Not to mention how many retarded rules there were about various movement types and alternate attacks that make anything other than walking and hitting a bad idea.
>>46640521
>>the heavier-rules editions of these things did not have stunting systems.
>Or, their stunting systems were a paltry +2 bonus compared to the numerous -2 bonuses they would accrue through any stunt.
1e was a big perpetrator of this.
>>46640559
>1e was a big perpetrator of this.
lol
nah bro
You literally don't know what you're talking about.
>>46640532
Don't forget the minuses for using anything you didn't spend a feat in!
Or the incredibly overspecific skill system!
>>46640559
>>46640532
Okay, I give up. You want to be wrong, feel free. Keep believing you're the only non-sheep and that the world is the one wrong.
>>46639508
Basically this.
>>46640602
I'm just going to continue thinking tabletop RPG combat is boring as hell, and that the medium is better suited to literally any other kind of problem.
And that there are infinities of competitors out there that blow tabletop RPG combat out of the water for people who actually want combat based challenges.
>>46640579
>thief acrobat and everything relating to it
>>46639965
Tension in combat comes from the fact that the results are up in the air. Will you die? Will your friends? You don't know.
Unless you're playing with a shit GM who's too much of a pussy to let characters die, in which case yeah, combat is fucking boring.
>>46640074
Only D&D and others directly inspired by its GM v players model did that.
One example of being an old as shit rpg would be Traveller. Traveller was harsh, and players had to think of ways to make their PCs survive, but the GM's job was more to simulate a world than to be against the players, because if the GM was actively against the players their characters would never survive a single encounter. In fact in Traveller you were supposed to avoid encounters entirely if you wanted to live.
>>46640680
that's why I say put it to a single dice roll, win/lose.
It's the same tension, the same betting rush, and can be modified if the players took intelligent action going into combat.
It has all the benefits of RPG combat, but is WAY fucking faster.
>>46640680
Well this is acting like dying is the best and really even the most interesting result of a botched fight.
Which... honestly I don't think it is. Dying typically just means you have to make a new character and any drama or tension comes from you not wanting this thing you invested time and energy in basically being gone now forever. Which isn't really an ideal way of incentivizing player action and in fact makes them focus on playing safe or breaking the rules which essentially turns the game into an "it's impossible to die" scenario unless you become a rock dropping faggot.
>>46640733
>>46640680
Yeah, a combat having a possibility of character death generally really makes me care less about it.
Because why be invested in the first place in the character if it can just die suddenly?
>>46637958
Around here it's just a snarl word - means "shit I don't like" rather than having any particular definition. Specifically it's likely to be used for games with narrative focuses, non-numerical rules, or a different power dynamic than D&D-style GM + Players (troupe play, shared GMing, no GM, or even just GM + Players with some narrative control). But that's already a broad and squishy group of traits.
/tg/ has a weird complex where numbers = masculinity, so anything that challenges RPGs = numbers makes them feel small in the pants.
/tg/ also has a weird need for social hierarchy, so anything that removes a hierarchy where there could have been one is an affront to tradition.
>>46640733
Also on the note of breaking the rules dying and death as a consequence does actually factor into the supposed tension there.
In that losing a character you invested time and energy into is only going to work if it feels like fairness is involved and fairness is only inferred if the mechanics are being utilized and are structurally sound.
The moment the GM is obviously bending the rules for the sake of convenience and he does ANYTHING that negatively impacts your character on a permanent basis (like death) then he's going to be an assole.
>>46640788
Things tend to work WAY better in a system where players voluntarily choose when and where characters die.
Character death is way more common now than it was back when a used a heavier rules system, because players can actually choose when it would be a satisfying conclusion.
>>46640490
Bullshit. Action points are more rules. They were (afaik) in D&D first added with the 3.5 Eberron supplement, and they didn't "replace" anything, it was just one more optional rule.
Don't misunderstand me, I like action points, but they are not inherently "rules light". You could point at any rule and say "this rule is rules light because it could be 20 times more complicated!", that doesn't make the rule or the game rules light.
>>46640758
Because then you can create that character son, out to avenge his father, or a child that s/he rescued earlier taking up the adventurers life, or what the fuck ever you can think of.
Only people who are shit at telling stories are afraid of ending one and starting another.
>>46640835
I think he was being sarcastic with that post.
>>46640835
action points are inherently narratavistic and strongly associated with rules light due to how narrative heavy things are associated with rules light.
They give a way for players to bypass the infinity of problems a rules heavy system presents.
It's a rules-light bypass they stuck on a heavy rules system that desperately needed it.
>>46640778
Troupe play? Never heard of that before.
>>46639595
No true scotsmen!
>>46640885
see
>>46640828
deaths happen far more often (and generally have more impact) when you can actually use them in a place that would make sense in a story.
>>46640893
You are probably correct.
It's hard to tell because this thread is so full of stupid shit.Now including my previous post.
>>46640907
They are not narrativist tho.
They are gamist. It 's a resource that lets you improve the mechanical performance of your character (by getting two actions or other bonuses, depending on edition).
Fate points on the other hand have narrativist elements, since you can spend them to influence the story in some way (on top of using them for compels), and are also gained by accepting the story-based drawbacks of your character.
>>46640912
Every player has multiple characters. You usually just play one at a time, but different groups for different scenes. Frequently that means GMing is on rotation, too. It completely avoids a lot of problems with the D&D-style system - class balance doesn't matter at all, and one-note joke characters aren't tiring. It has its own problems - slow character advancement, can devolve into taking turns hogging the spotlight.
Ars Magica is notable for having it. Ars's mechanics are warmed over shit, but it's still worth reading because it went down that path.
>>46641000
they're a single pool that can give you bonuses to whatever is convenient, anon.
Compared to the granularity and gamism of the rest of the system, they're narrativistic and rules light as hell.
So I read the thread and my main problem with it is people saying RPG combat beats out war game combat at anything ever.
Wargames superior.
>>46641041
A sub-system can't be rules light. Or rather, saying "sub-system X is rules light" is a pointless statement to make.
You could say "roll a d20 and add modifiers to beat target value" is rules light since it's simple, but the systems discussed using it still aren't.
Also, action points are still not narrativist, since they still only give mechanical benefits, not story-altering ones. You could say the justification is narrativist if you want, I guess, but the usage is decidedly gamist.
>>46641133
Because the game itself is largely gamist, to have a narrativist effect you have to modify or bypass the rules.
Both of which are done in one fashion or another by action points.
>>46640240
When you get a puzzle almost done it can't decide, "Actualy you have a dozen more pieces to put in"
Pac-Man can't suddenly decide the power pellets arn't in the cornors this level
Super Mario Bros. can't decide that this particular goomba bursts into flame when you try and jump on it.
Chutes and ladders can't decide that the latter five spaces away is actualy six spaces away.
A GM on the other hand can decide that the ogre chief "just happens" to have an extra dozen body guards waiting in the wings, or that the space pirates had an extra battle cruiser on the way, or that the Black Spiral Dancer has five dots is fuck all of you forever.
Most of the time they /shouldn't/ do the above, but the point is if they're an atagonistic GM that views TPKs as "winning" they /can/ and there's technicaly no rule against it.
>>46641187
>modifying or bypassing the rules are done by following the rules
I think you have a very limited understanding of what "narrativist" generally means.
>>46637958
Storytelling games are just normal RPG's with faggy gay hipster terminology woven into them.
>>46641207
I think you have a very limited understanding of what needs to be done to make a gamist system more narrative.
Including rules to help you bypass dozens of more complicated rules or invalidate challenges when applicable for the sake of your narrative is a narrative feature, and strongly associated with rules light practices.
>>46641187
Look. A feat that gives you +4 to a skill roll is not narrativist, right?
Why is a point that you can spend to get +4 to a skill roll narrativist?
GNS theory was a mistake.
>>46641235
>Including rules to help you bypass dozens of more complicated rules or invalidate challenges when applicable for the sake of your narrative
These things are called 'spells' in 3.5 land, and nobody argues they are narrative mechanics.
>>46641252
Because everyone gets them and they aren't specific to any one thing and their primary use is smoothing things along when the mechanics otherwise would prove a hinderance to the story.
Like edge points. or fate points.
>>46637958
Because it usually devolves into forum-based roleplay tier shit.
>I activate my everything-proof shield!
Yeah? Well, I use my anti-everything-proof-shield katana to cut through it and hit you!
>Nuh-uh!
Yeah-huh!
>>46641018
Huh, sounds pretty cool. I'm not really into the rotating GM part though. I don't think my friends would be interested in splitting that kind of responsibility between our different styles.
>>46641283
I think the reason people were so pissed at them was that one archetype grouping got all the narrative control and the rest got jack shit.
>>46641330
Funny, usually it turns into stand fighting in my experience.
>>46641235
>Including rules to help you bypass dozens of more complicated rules or invalidate challenges when applicable
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm
Go ahead and point out how many of the options listed allows a player to "bypass dozens of more complicated rules".
>strongly associated with rules light practices
First, action points have been most commonly associated with Shadowrun and WoD, and neither of which use them to bypass rules or invalidate challenges. (Both Edge and Willpower were quite gamey, if anything.)
Second, being associated with other narrative systems doesn't make a mechanic any more narrative in a specific system. Diplomacy is frequently associated with narrative systems, but D&D didn't become "more narrative" by including diplomacy rolls in its mechanics.
>>46641327
> their primary use is smoothing things along when the mechanics otherwise would prove a hinderance to the story
Their primary use is to grant a bonus to a roll. You still can't do things that aren't possible with a skill roll. It's not smoothing along anything.
You can't spend an action point and say "actually, Fisher Phil and I go way back, I'm sure he'd let us crash for the night", but you CAN do so with a fate point. At best, you can spend an action point to get +4 to diplomacy, but the narrative control is still in the DMs hand.
>>46641348
Admittedly true. Still, they are rarely called narrative mechanics.
>>46641379
Anon, edge specifically lets you avoid any character death you dislike regardless of circumstance, and exceed normal rules to get otherwise impossible successes for the sake of narrative.
>>46641388
>>46641379
you are both kind of dumb for not noticing how action points allow you to outright bypass the feat system as is necessary, or prevent bleeding out with 100% certainty.
>>46641413
playing a wizard is playing a significantly more narrative-centric game than playing a fighter, though.
>>46641425
>you are both kind of dumb for not noticing how action points allow you to outright bypass the feat system as is necessary, or prevent bleeding out with 100% certainty.
And you are fucking retarded for not noticing it doesn't bypass the skill system, but instead stacks with it.
>>46641453
I said feat system, anon.
>>46641453
*feat system
I wonder where the conception that storygames need to be rules light and non-storygames need to be heavy. Play Burning Wheel or Tenra Bansho Zero or something and broaden your horizons, damn.
>>46641457
hit submit too soon>>46641465
But yeah, it also stacks with that.
>>46641425
>bypass the feat system
How does needing the prerequisites for the feat and needing to apply the feat to the current situation count as "bypassing dozens of more complicated rules"?
And yes, I did see the ability to use an action point to stabilize during dying - although I note that's only stabilizing when under 0 HP, not preventing bleeding or any similar mechanic. It's why I asked how many options, out of the 16 presented, allow bypassing rules. One option, which bypasses one minor game mechanic, in exchange for layering on a much more complicated game mechanic and giving over a dozen other even more complex options, is not what I would consider making the game more rules-light.
>>46641481
Minorly improving feats is much less impactful than the ability to outright negate the feat system a few times.
>>46641508
Being able to bypass entire subsystems like feats when required for the convenience of the plot sounds like you're making it rules light to me.
>>46641542
>>46641508
>>46641453
I dunno anons, being able to use a pool of narrative resources to ease out the rough edges of a system that otherwise would screw you in the same situation mechanically sounds like a narrative practice to me.
>>46641509
>>46641542
>>46641580
And I'm saying that it doesn't negate it, but stacks with it. You still need the prereq feats and you are still, in essence, using the feat system to boot. You can't do something that's not covered by the existing rules (aside from stabilize I guess, although that's still just a success).
It's not fucking bypassing if you are still using the system that you are supposedly bypassing.
>>46641542
>Being able to bypass entire subsystems like feats when required for the convenience of the plot sounds like you're making it rules light to me.
So are you saying that spellcasting is a narrative mechanic and makes D&D a rules light system?
>>46641640
well, wizards DO play a much more narrative focused game than classes that don't have spells, and tend to outright nullify combat situations leaving primarily roleplay problems...
>>46640699
D&D did not have a "GM vs Player" model. That's just the sign of a bad GM.
In old-school D&D, the GM arbitrated the world, sometimes with brutal finality. Old school D&D was an adventure game where you pit your character against the world, with rules to arbitrate success or failure.
Characters succeeded or died, often through their own ingenuity or ignorance, occasionally from the luck of the dice. But that was also part of its beauty.
>>46641599
Anon, even being able to smooth out bad rolls into good ones with a narrative resource sounds narrative to me. Including onto that the ability to avoid death or have abilities that you do not actually have, and it seems like a significant departure from more traditionally gamist structures.
>>46641680
>being able to smooth out bad rolls into good ones with a narrative resource sounds narrative to me
You are not very familiar with the system you are discussing, are you?
>>46641745
In retrospect, caster types really get a whole hell of a lot more narrative control and ability to ignore game mechanics than anyone else.
It's good they spread that out a little with action points.
>>46641680
It can sound like that to you, but then you don't fucking understand what narrative means. A narrative mechanic has to give control of the narrative to the player in some way. By sour definition, expending spell slots or stamina points, or stunning fists to gain a bonus isn't any less of a narrative mechanic than expending an action point to gain a bonus on a skill roll or temporarily gain a feat (especially since both of these effects are covered by spells and other class abilities anyway, both in 3.5 and in PF).
PS.: this is going in circles, I'm personally done with this line of conversation.
>>46641782
anon, these action points give significantly more narrative control than stunning fist, with significantly less rules.
And they give them to everyone, instead of making it the domain of a certain class or species.
meaning it's a thing that the PLAYERS have, not their characters.
>>46637958
Why do they have a stigma associated with them? Basically this guy >>46640344
>>46641824
Every character has a strength score that they can use to kick down doors (and thus ignore the need to invest in lockpicking), this doesn't suddenly make strength a narrativist mechanic.
>>46641907
I dunno, he's kinda right.
The more you rely on rules instead of DM calls, the more your game becomes like a video game.
>>46641922
Thankfully action points aren't really related to mechanics like strength, as they're distributed evenly to players regardless of class or attribute setup besides the possibility of specialized prestige classes.
>>46641927
In fact, now that I think about it, the only real advantage human players and DMs have over computers is the ability to think on the fly and do things that are not expressly intended by the rules.
Or making new rules as they go.
>>46641345
Rotating GM is optional.
Though one idea is that you have a GM doing an overarching plot, a GM doing court intrigue subplots, and GM doing wacky misc adventures. You'd rotate through material as well as people.
>>46641927
So? Try writing a legible novel while ignoring all rules of language, grammar and spelling. Just because computers do rules better than humans doesn't mean that 100% imagination is better than a synergistic combination of rules and imagination.
The reason rules-lite games tend to be stigmatized, is proponents tend to come on these boards looking down their noses at crunchy games, and claiming their preferences are objectively superior to others.
>>46642512
anon you're doing some serious strawmanning when you call rules light or narrativist systems 100% imagination.
I'm just saying that going overly rules heavy generally means you are going more towards what computers do well, and losing the advantage of having a human GM.
>>46642550
And you're doing the same thing when you call crunchy systems nothing but computer games.
All RPGs (hell, all games) exist on a spectrum somewhere between pure computation and pure imagination. Saying that a certain point on that spectrum is better than another because it's closer to one of the extremes is a) stupid, b) unsupported.
>>46642705
anon, I said going towards and losing, instead of something like have lost, because I acknowledge it is a spectrum and am warning that going to the extreme of one side of the spectrum (in this case gamism) loses the advantages of the medium.
>>46642550
You are correct in absolute terms but like... okay, imagine a linear scale with stuff computers do well on one end and stuff humans do well on the other.
A computer game would be in the computer end, a freeform game would be on the human end. You are correct in that the heavier the rules are, the closer the game would move towards computers.
But even a really rules heavy system would be waaaay closer to the human end, because of the huge amount of interactions computers just can't cover (at the moment, I mean, it's not impossible we get some crazy advanced AIs that can accurately interpret what your character is trying to do and decide on an outcome).
So while yes, you are correct that a more complicated game could benefit more from being computer assisted, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter because tabletop RPGs are still so far from CRPGs that they are only comparable on the surface level.
>>46642753
There's nothing lost. It could gain from being computer assisted, but as long as the game somehow doesn't force you into taking only pre-programmed actions, or stop you from changing rules, nothing was really lost.
>>46642760
I dunno man, I've played some rules heavier systems that had all the rules largely automated while the players and GM did their thing, and it worked out really well.
Well, until we ran into a section of the game that we had not automated, because nobody thought about using burst fire like that, but still. It was an incredibly smooth experience.
>>46642779
I feel like we are agreeing but you don't want to agree.
>>46640532
The problem is that you played the worst edition of the game.
And even then, you could still be decent with improvised weapons because the +20 from all your other shit wasn't really weighed down by the -4.
>>46639525
It had been a while since I'd last responded. Dog had been calling me for about an era, but I couldn't sbeark. I, the priest. I, the heretic. I, the apostate. I finally sbearked back to Dog.
--Obey--said he.
--Always and never--said I.
I looked around I. These horrific beauties surrounded me and frowned their distasteful smiles. I tasted the air.
--C-ts--
--Naye--
--Who stand you, and who stand you for?--
--All that you loathe and find delicious--
--Ah--
These were a stivich sort of people. Never in my years have I seen the brand. Nor Schmultz, who I could hear in my stomach. Protesting the dimension. Protesting the era. Protesting mine devotion. MINE DEVOTION.
--Formerpresentfuture Schmultz--
--Naye--
--by next era shall you be learned aught--
--Naye--
A heretic approaches, tail aswish.
"Excuse me sir, have you a moment for Übermensch?"
I ran my toothknife via his tail and aught caught mineself until his insides poourled o'er the dimension.
--Naye, I do-- says I.
"I have nor time with which to bemourne my death," he said.
--Naye, you do not.--
>>46639235
>Has /v/ really washed over into /tg/?
It's more of an old school sentiment, really. RPGs used to be treated more like orthogames back in the days of D&D tournaments.
>>46640171
This is totally true, but I think it's something some players want to avoid being reminded of, which is part of why they seek heavily systemized games. Those systems don't really stop the GM from killing them with a level inappropriate dragon fight or whatever, but it makes them feel like it does.
>>46640171
If the GM puts out a situation, players like to be able to factor this into their risk calculation and will notice when things act in a way that's not predictable/plausible/authentic.
A GM can put an entirely unwinnable encounter into a game so long as the players are aware that they're able to avoid it or work around it. But if you put an encounter down, and the players think they can win it then 'holding back' or deus ex machina completely destroy tension and integrity of the game in the same way having rocks fall would.
>>46638060
>>46638945
The problem is that White Wolf and similar companies frequently use the narrative excuse to make a lazy system that is very poorly balanced mechanically. Not just in the sense of wizards > all or something of that nature (though there can be plenty of that), but in that certain mechanics don't work very well in practice. With White Wolf there are tons of optimal builds and traps and gradations of power that just cause the game to break in half. Worse still, it is very easy to just stumble into one of these. I have witnessed this in several of their game lines.
With White Wolf at least, there is also no attempt whatsoever to make credible enemies or a means of ballparking what's something reasonable to fight. You just sort of have to make a guess and either playtest it beforehand or hope it works out in practice. This means you have to build the opposition from scratch very carefully, which is also very time consuming.
The practical result of this is it becomes a much bigger pain in the ass to play one of these games than simply running a hard rules game where a lot of emphasis was made in the system. With storytelling you have to figure out all the mechanics. With harder rules that was done for you. I would much rather roleplay in the latter and work on narrative than put my time into individually designing encounters.
>>46641946
Not that guy but whew you are fucking dense.
First off action points are not always evenly distrubuted depending on the system. Secondly they don't give significant narrative control to be called narrativest. All these points usually do is give flat bonuses to a pass/fail role.
To get truely narrativest you need to give me, the player, the ability to independently create scenes or effect the world around me without my character acting. Action points as described in the previous posts are just gamist point bonuses to help negate shitty rolls.
>>46637958
>So, I've heard the term "storytelling game" used a bit around here, usually in a negative light.
I would imagine it's because D&D is the most popular thing and it's the opposite. Not to fan the flames, but as my group plays really narrative-heavy game, I often feel like partaking in an entirely different hobby than most here.
>>46647576
Whitewolf RPGs aren't even really narrative. Like, the only narrative-ish mechanic I can think of are willpower and humanity (and their respective variants for the non Vampire line). They throw the term around but in my experience, they are more like bad attempts at simulationist games.
>>46647576
>>46648362
That whole White Wolf/Ars Magica, like, anti-D&D 80s game corner of the RPG hobby is really strange in that way. On the one hand all the mechanics are for simulating things, but all of the advice given for how to run the game only ever talks about the story.
The end result is you have no idea what kinds of difficulty checks to make players do, even though you have tons of rules about skills and dice and whatever.
You know what I learned today?
Some people who play with bad GMs will tend to blame the system instead of their gms, and refuse to believe anyone who tells them otherwise.
>>46641477
A game like Swords & Wizardry, Lamentations of the Flame Princess or similar (with their stupid lethality, harsh combat and puzzles and tendency towards dungeon-bashing) are hardly story games, but are also pretty light on the rules, all things considered.
