Claiming that "story games" are a different category than ttrpgs, when they're a subcategor *at best,* is baffling. Claiming they're as different as soccer and rugby is genuinely insane.
If Wargames are different from RPGs, then Story games are different from RPGs. I've got more posts about this already. They're different, and I'm tired of people insisting they're not; the state of the discourse just shows it, because there's clearly something MORE here.
All 3 are tabletop games though. That's the main categories that these 3 things are subcategories of.
I think you are mixing up playing styles, games and game genre and using them as synonyms.
The example between Rugby and Soccer
You explain how changing the rules made them different games. 100% right.
Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, Sword Worlds, Star Wars RPG all have different rules and hence are different games and so different names.
And now what? You don't continue that string of thoughts. You suddenly jump from "How rules define a game" and use that example on how using different play styles, define what games belong to what genre which is completely unrelated.
You are basically saying, Because Rugby and Soccer are not the same game anymore, if you play Soccer with 8 people, remove the goals and use longest ball contact as winning condition, soccer is no longer a ball sports game because the difference in playstyle, change the game genre.
I felt a bit like having a stroke reading your article at first but now i get what you mean.
RPG is a genre that define games that use role playing (According to Wikipedia and the Rulebook of almost every RPG that exists). Nothing more, nothing less. So the decision making is simple.
Does the game have role playing elements?
Yes: Its an RPG
No: Its not an RPG
That is out of the way.
So what are Story Games? Story Games are Games that focus on Story.
Does you game focus an Story?
Yes: Its an Story Game
No: Its not an Story Game
Does Battleship have an Story?
No. It is not an Story Game.
Is Battleship an RPG?
No. There are no role playing elements.
If you play DnD 5E with a story driven campaign, does that make it an Story Game?
Yes. It has focus on Story.
If you play DnD 5E with a story driven campaign, does that make it an RPG?
Yes. It has role playing elements.
If a game is an Story Game and/or an RPG is unrelated. Those are two completely different things.
The thing with Rugby and Soccer is that they are generic terms for a whole multitude of games, (rugby/football more so). That's why I chose them. These variant games are recognisable as variants though, just like how true RPGs are in fact recognizeable and are played in similar ways. You're reading too much into that analogy though. It's more about "what happens if they were not called different things", which is what I say. With the rugby variants, many of them can be easily transitioned between and take only a bit of explanation to change. You say the thought stops though. except I DO finish it, to say that there is a new type of game that has grown out of RPGs. Did you struggle to read that badly?
The meat of your criticism is there though: When you directly address the definitions.
First; What I'm describing is a spectrum; these definitions have fuzzy elements, as I say with the "Fuzzy edges." But there's still divides in the core experience and resolution. an RPG with story elements doesn't MEAN it's a story game. Just because I put "destiny points" in my RPG, doesn't make it a story game, even though those are there to facilitate someone being a 'chosen one.'
Your citation of wikipedia doesn't mean anything, because you don't even define roleplaying. Part of the point of this, is that there are many people who think the "story game interaction" type is roleplaying. But it isn't. That is my point. And if you say "that's just a game style" then you need to realize that games made to cater to different styles may, in fact, be fundamentally different genres of games.
2) If you play DnD 5E with a story driven campaign, does that make it an Story Game?
You say Yes, but the answer is No. It of course does depend what you mean by story driven. I am going to assume you mean "narrative primary". And not just "a campaign with more activities than meaningless dungeon crawling.
A group "plays D&D 5e", but they just decide to ignore the results of the rules whenever they disagree with the plot or story , they are either merely using D&D as an excuse to improv (not actually playing it), or they are playing D&D wrong. 5e is also just an incredibly poor example; it's a bad game with next to no GM support in any capacity, incredibly poor quality roleplay due to running into 2.b of "Defining Roleplaying"
Heck, I feel like I'm repeating myself here. A story game is NOT just a game with a plot. I said this. An RPG is not JUST a game where you control a character(s). NOR is it one that just has "role playing elements." Or you'd have to call Warhammer 40k tabletop an RPG as soon as you met the average Ork player.
I've got another essay in the works that addresses "Conversation is not the game in an RPG" without actually using the word "conversation." That word appears to confuse stuff too much, since having a conversation is part of playing it, but it's not the game.
Clearly I had to explain this more methodically than originally thought to reach everyone.
Me, and the people who invented DnD and almost any other TRPG say yes.
You disagree with pretty much everyone who ever designed a TRPG and that is okay, but it is an very bold statement and for such an statement, you are giving a lot of vague descriptions targeting newcomers and not any in-depth information for people who actually are involved in the process of making TRPG.
And that is the meat of my criticism. You are lecturing people without the knowledge to do so and without openly stating "Attention! I just made this up! This is how i personally feel how things should be, it is not describing facts"
You have your opinion and you are absolutely perfectly right having it and stating it, but when you present it in an form of pseudo knowledge, be aware to post and disclaimer that this is just your personal opinion and might or might not be related to how things really are.
> the people who invented DnD and almost any other TRPG say yes.
Gygax literally said "Roleplaying is not storytelling". You're the one accusing me of acting on incomplete knowledge?
If that was the meat of your argument, then I gave you too much credit. You're just saying I don't have the authority to do this. That's arguable, but authority is relative. Worse, you're saying I'm writing based on my feelings, and your proof for this is that I don't have the authority. I'm not the first to draw the distinctions I am attempting to do so here. Justin Alexander also has, is HE a good enough authority?
I don't think you've thought about what I've actually said here, you just don't like what I've said and are looking for any excuse to discredit it.
> Gygax literally said "Roleplaying is not storytelling".
That is true, but unrelated to this conversation. Roleplaying is Roleplaying. When people sit on a Table and Roleplay, thats Roleplaying. Nobody, especially not me, said that Storytelling is Roleplaying.
Not just did i disagree, that was exactly my argument to begin with. If you read my first comment, you'll see, that this is exactly what i said too.
The most important and essential aspect of an TRPG is that people sit on an table and Roleplay. Hence the name "Role Playing Game" and you were arguing against that and i made several examples to show you how wrong that is.
Here, let me create a new one. An car with an automatic transmission is still a car. Just because it shifts automatically, doesn't turn it into an different kind of vehicle. Just because a bike can shift manually, doesn't turn it into an car.
A car is a car and a bike is a bike. Both could shift manually and automatically, but that doesn't make them a different vehicle.
When a group ROLEPLAYS a GAME with a Storytelling campaing, it is still an RPG.
Your argument wasn't "Storytelling is not RPG", your argument was "RPG with Storytelling are no longer RPG"
As long there is Roleplaying and its a game, its an RPG. And that is literally what the very first DnD Rulebook says and my initial comment.
Ah I see, you're just totally confused about what I wrote in the first place. Not sure why, most people seem to have comprehended what I'm getting at. How about you read what I wrote instead of just skimming it and reacting?
I wasn't talking about storytelling style CAMPAIGNS.
I am talking about STORYTELLING GAMES. This a different thing. Stop making category errors.
You have to agree, that it is easy to misunderstand your article as you used RPG Campaigns with Story focus as an example for Storytelling games (even though they are unrelated).
Also you defined what Roleplaying is and your definition is different from the Defintion that is stated on Wikipedia and in TRPG Rulebooks.
If you use a different definition than the common known for "What are RPG" and then use common story telling methods used in RPGs and say that these are not RPG, what else should i think?
You define, in your article, what are RPG and what are Storytelling games and then explain, why you are right based on your definition.
All i am telling you, since the beginning, is that your personal opinion on what RPG are and what Storytelling Games are is not reflected in the real world and in Rulebooks by the people who created these terms.
So we are using the same terms, but you define them different than ROW.
You can not just ignore the common definition of words and argue based on your own personal opinion on what these words should mean.
Claiming that "story games" are a different category than ttrpgs, when they're a subcategor *at best,* is baffling. Claiming they're as different as soccer and rugby is genuinely insane.
If Wargames are different from RPGs, then Story games are different from RPGs. I've got more posts about this already. They're different, and I'm tired of people insisting they're not; the state of the discourse just shows it, because there's clearly something MORE here.
All 3 are tabletop games though. That's the main categories that these 3 things are subcategories of.
I think you are mixing up playing styles, games and game genre and using them as synonyms.
The example between Rugby and Soccer
You explain how changing the rules made them different games. 100% right.
Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, Sword Worlds, Star Wars RPG all have different rules and hence are different games and so different names.
And now what? You don't continue that string of thoughts. You suddenly jump from "How rules define a game" and use that example on how using different play styles, define what games belong to what genre which is completely unrelated.
You are basically saying, Because Rugby and Soccer are not the same game anymore, if you play Soccer with 8 people, remove the goals and use longest ball contact as winning condition, soccer is no longer a ball sports game because the difference in playstyle, change the game genre.
I felt a bit like having a stroke reading your article at first but now i get what you mean.
RPG is a genre that define games that use role playing (According to Wikipedia and the Rulebook of almost every RPG that exists). Nothing more, nothing less. So the decision making is simple.
Does the game have role playing elements?
Yes: Its an RPG
No: Its not an RPG
That is out of the way.
So what are Story Games? Story Games are Games that focus on Story.
Does you game focus an Story?
Yes: Its an Story Game
No: Its not an Story Game
Does Battleship have an Story?
No. It is not an Story Game.
Is Battleship an RPG?
No. There are no role playing elements.
If you play DnD 5E with a story driven campaign, does that make it an Story Game?
Yes. It has focus on Story.
If you play DnD 5E with a story driven campaign, does that make it an RPG?
Yes. It has role playing elements.
If a game is an Story Game and/or an RPG is unrelated. Those are two completely different things.
The thing with Rugby and Soccer is that they are generic terms for a whole multitude of games, (rugby/football more so). That's why I chose them. These variant games are recognisable as variants though, just like how true RPGs are in fact recognizeable and are played in similar ways. You're reading too much into that analogy though. It's more about "what happens if they were not called different things", which is what I say. With the rugby variants, many of them can be easily transitioned between and take only a bit of explanation to change. You say the thought stops though. except I DO finish it, to say that there is a new type of game that has grown out of RPGs. Did you struggle to read that badly?
The meat of your criticism is there though: When you directly address the definitions.
First; What I'm describing is a spectrum; these definitions have fuzzy elements, as I say with the "Fuzzy edges." But there's still divides in the core experience and resolution. an RPG with story elements doesn't MEAN it's a story game. Just because I put "destiny points" in my RPG, doesn't make it a story game, even though those are there to facilitate someone being a 'chosen one.'
Your citation of wikipedia doesn't mean anything, because you don't even define roleplaying. Part of the point of this, is that there are many people who think the "story game interaction" type is roleplaying. But it isn't. That is my point. And if you say "that's just a game style" then you need to realize that games made to cater to different styles may, in fact, be fundamentally different genres of games.
2) If you play DnD 5E with a story driven campaign, does that make it an Story Game?
You say Yes, but the answer is No. It of course does depend what you mean by story driven. I am going to assume you mean "narrative primary". And not just "a campaign with more activities than meaningless dungeon crawling.
A group "plays D&D 5e", but they just decide to ignore the results of the rules whenever they disagree with the plot or story , they are either merely using D&D as an excuse to improv (not actually playing it), or they are playing D&D wrong. 5e is also just an incredibly poor example; it's a bad game with next to no GM support in any capacity, incredibly poor quality roleplay due to running into 2.b of "Defining Roleplaying"
Heck, I feel like I'm repeating myself here. A story game is NOT just a game with a plot. I said this. An RPG is not JUST a game where you control a character(s). NOR is it one that just has "role playing elements." Or you'd have to call Warhammer 40k tabletop an RPG as soon as you met the average Ork player.
I've got another essay in the works that addresses "Conversation is not the game in an RPG" without actually using the word "conversation." That word appears to confuse stuff too much, since having a conversation is part of playing it, but it's not the game.
Clearly I had to explain this more methodically than originally thought to reach everyone.
> You say Yes, but the answer is No.
Me, and the people who invented DnD and almost any other TRPG say yes.
You disagree with pretty much everyone who ever designed a TRPG and that is okay, but it is an very bold statement and for such an statement, you are giving a lot of vague descriptions targeting newcomers and not any in-depth information for people who actually are involved in the process of making TRPG.
And that is the meat of my criticism. You are lecturing people without the knowledge to do so and without openly stating "Attention! I just made this up! This is how i personally feel how things should be, it is not describing facts"
You have your opinion and you are absolutely perfectly right having it and stating it, but when you present it in an form of pseudo knowledge, be aware to post and disclaimer that this is just your personal opinion and might or might not be related to how things really are.
> the people who invented DnD and almost any other TRPG say yes.
Gygax literally said "Roleplaying is not storytelling". You're the one accusing me of acting on incomplete knowledge?
If that was the meat of your argument, then I gave you too much credit. You're just saying I don't have the authority to do this. That's arguable, but authority is relative. Worse, you're saying I'm writing based on my feelings, and your proof for this is that I don't have the authority. I'm not the first to draw the distinctions I am attempting to do so here. Justin Alexander also has, is HE a good enough authority?
I don't think you've thought about what I've actually said here, you just don't like what I've said and are looking for any excuse to discredit it.
> Gygax literally said "Roleplaying is not storytelling".
That is true, but unrelated to this conversation. Roleplaying is Roleplaying. When people sit on a Table and Roleplay, thats Roleplaying. Nobody, especially not me, said that Storytelling is Roleplaying.
Not just did i disagree, that was exactly my argument to begin with. If you read my first comment, you'll see, that this is exactly what i said too.
The most important and essential aspect of an TRPG is that people sit on an table and Roleplay. Hence the name "Role Playing Game" and you were arguing against that and i made several examples to show you how wrong that is.
Here, let me create a new one. An car with an automatic transmission is still a car. Just because it shifts automatically, doesn't turn it into an different kind of vehicle. Just because a bike can shift manually, doesn't turn it into an car.
A car is a car and a bike is a bike. Both could shift manually and automatically, but that doesn't make them a different vehicle.
When a group ROLEPLAYS a GAME with a Storytelling campaing, it is still an RPG.
Your argument wasn't "Storytelling is not RPG", your argument was "RPG with Storytelling are no longer RPG"
As long there is Roleplaying and its a game, its an RPG. And that is literally what the very first DnD Rulebook says and my initial comment.
Ah I see, you're just totally confused about what I wrote in the first place. Not sure why, most people seem to have comprehended what I'm getting at. How about you read what I wrote instead of just skimming it and reacting?
I wasn't talking about storytelling style CAMPAIGNS.
I am talking about STORYTELLING GAMES. This a different thing. Stop making category errors.
You have to agree, that it is easy to misunderstand your article as you used RPG Campaigns with Story focus as an example for Storytelling games (even though they are unrelated).
Also you defined what Roleplaying is and your definition is different from the Defintion that is stated on Wikipedia and in TRPG Rulebooks.
If you use a different definition than the common known for "What are RPG" and then use common story telling methods used in RPGs and say that these are not RPG, what else should i think?
You define, in your article, what are RPG and what are Storytelling games and then explain, why you are right based on your definition.
All i am telling you, since the beginning, is that your personal opinion on what RPG are and what Storytelling Games are is not reflected in the real world and in Rulebooks by the people who created these terms.
So we are using the same terms, but you define them different than ROW.
You can not just ignore the common definition of words and argue based on your own personal opinion on what these words should mean.