I’m going to be moving soon. I’ve been lucky to live for the past few years in a city which has a deep and diverse pool of gaming communities, with enough space in the ecosystem for the weird little niches that generally contain the stuff I really care about, and for there to be new niches to dip my toes into. That has included an active storygaming community, which has been amazing.
I’m moving to a smaller city with a much smaller tech sector, and a correspondingly smaller Nerd Arts community. From what I can make out, the regular RPG scene there comprises D&D, Pathfinder and maybe a little White Wolf LARP. I’ve got an established online group, playing through G+ hangouts, and they’re all lovely people and we have a good time. But it’s not the same as in-person games: a little more work, a good deal less immediacy. So I’ve been thinking long and inconclusively about how feasible it’ll be to set up a local pickup storygames group – and that inevitably means thinking about explaining storygames, which in turn means having an idea about what they are.
The usual potted version is “tabletop role-playing games with a heavy emphasis on story.” But that’s not hugely helpful, not least because everyone seems to have a different idea of what story means. In accepting the XYZZY Award for Best Story, Jon Ingold said that he didn’t really consider 80 Days to be a game that had a story. S. John Ross says “I don’t game for story“. I suspect that John and Jon understand ‘story’ in games as something more specific than I do – which, regardless of what the exact differences are (this is a rabbit-hole* of a subject, too extensive for this margin) suggests that just saying ‘games which place a priority on story’ doesn’t do a good job of unpacking the term, and may actively mislead.
(My other major gaming interest, interactive fiction, has a very similar naming problem – indeed, ‘interactive fiction’ and ‘story game’ become effectively equivalent if you take the maximalist, literal-meaning-of-the-words position. I’ve seen a good number of people using ‘story games’ to mean narrative-focused videogames, which makes me long for more usable proper nouns, rather than this morass of slippery semi-definitions.)
Anyway. For purposes here, storygames are a subset of tabletop role-playing games. Sure, I know splitters, people who prefer to think of storygames and RPGs as separate, albeit adjacent categories – unsurprisingly, these are usually people who enjoy one but not the other. And there are the lumpers, folks who say that all RPGs are storygames. Here’s the definition on the storygames.com forums, which leans towards genre inclusivity as a community-management principle:
A Story Game… is another word for A Role-Playing Game. Defined as “A game where you play a role“. This covers a lot, A LOT, of ground.
In other contexts, I’ve seen people use the term ‘story game’ as a term for any tabletop role-playing game, used to avoid the cultural baggage or jargony feel that ‘role-playing game’ might convey. It might also avoid confusion with CRPGs – itself a broad and imprecise category, and one which for many players is the only meaning of RPG. All of these are fair enough contextual uses, but they’re not what I (or, I think, my community of use) understand by the term.
A narrower definition is tricky, because there are no absolutely definitive features of storygames – rather, there is a cluster of associated and related concepts that typify them. (I admit to an intellectual preference for this kind of arrangement.) I’m going to focus on what makes them distinctive from traditional tabletop RPGs, rather than how or if they’re different from improv drama, freeform collaborative storytelling (One Word Story), or narrative-y card games (Gloom, Once Upon A Time). None of these features are ubiquitous in storygames; some of them are even unusual, but still more likely to appear in storygames than traditional tabletop.
- Weakened, atomised and distributed GM authority. Many storygames have no games master, with the players sharing the GM’s traditional roles, either equally or with divided powers. In games where there is a GM, their responsibilities and powers are often reduced; some games tamper with the GM power imbalance by reifying a GM-like role as a character with their own interests (My Life with Master, My Daughter the Queen of France, Serpent’s Tooth, Dog Eat Dog). If there’s a GM-like role, it’s often renamed to something less authoritarian-sounding.
- An emphasis on collaborative creativity throughout play. The players of a storygame can’t (or shouldn’t) be mostly reactive; they have to be inventive. Trad RPG involves a lot more separate, pre-game creativity, with the GM designing worlds and scenarios, and the players designing their characters. In storygames, the most important, fun creative activity is the stuff you do together, during play sessions. They’re reliant on players creatively building on other players’ creative contributions.
- Low level of required preparation. All tabletop RPGs are to some extent extemporaneous, but in storygames this is much more prominent. Many storygames require no advance preparation beyond knowing the rules. Those which do have prep are likely to keep it relatively light, leaving lots of room for improvisation at the table. (This is the biggest difference between storygames and theatre LARP).
- No Myth. (See Dan Shiovitz’s discussion of the term here.) Nothing is established for sure about the world, the characters or the plot until it’s been introduced during role-play itself; the action adapts to whatever the players are focused on. (If you had plans to introduce Amazing Backstory Thing, you’d better do it soon, because someone else might do something that renders it moot.) Making it up as you go along is encouraged: ‘play to find out.’
- Explicit narrative structure, particularly with regard to pacing. At the small scale, storygames are likely to organise the action into discrete scenes, often with specific procedures for setting up a scene and ending it. At the larger scale, many storygames make their narrative arc mechanically explicit: in Polaris the society will always fall. The arc of a Fiasco game generally tracks an ill-advised scheme that goes horribly wrong. Most storygames are conscious attempts to define a genre with its own narrative rules. (Trad storygames also have standard narrative structures: the cycle between dungeon action and town rebuilding, the long arc of growing character power leading towards a big confrontation and eucatastrophe.)
- Player success detached from player-character success. In a traditional RPG, players are advocates for their character; they are expected to want and work towards in-character success (or, to put it another way, there’s motivational alignment: the player and PC want the same things). In a storygame, you often knowingly act against your character’s best interests for the sake of narrative. Sometimes this is because you’re playing a role (‘I don’t think this is a good idea, but my character doesn’t know that’); sometimes it’s for dramatic reasons (‘Brock could react a lot of different ways here, but it’s more interesting if he blames Laura’) or because you have powers that the player-character doesn’t (‘Amy awakes to a sky blackened by locust swarms’). Most storygames only work if the players buy into this assumption; even in games where you’re mechanically competing (Shooting the Moon) there is usually a strong assumption that the players will treat tactics lightly rather than focusing on optimal use of systems.
- Non-immersionist (or, in IF terms, not aiming at maximal mimesis). The player does typically represent and inhabit the subjective viewpoint of a single primary character – but they also need to work from the perspective of an author or a director.
- Less individual ownership of PCs. Some storygames give players control over a single character only temporarily (Remember Tomorrow); some eliminate or dramatically reduce persistent characters (The Quiet Year, Microscope).
- Knowledge separation between player and PC; not much emphasis on hidden information. In many storygames, players routinely share out-of-character information – for instance, talking about their PC’s motives even when nobody (perhaps not even the PC) could really know about them. Some games do faux-hidden information – when you win narration in InSpectres or Gaze Into the Abyss in Monsterhearts you discover something new, but that new thing might very well be made up on the spot.
- PC – PC conflict. Traditional RPGs typically assume that most of the game will involve the player-characters working together as a unit to overcome external threats; players might disagree about objectives or squabble over the loot, but most of their efforts are expected to be cooperative. In storygames the most significant conflicts are often between players.
- Simple rules. Usually. Mostly. Not as important as the next item:
- Little emphasis on simulationist mechanics. Rules are typically not intended to closely simulate or enforce a realistic model of the world. In particular, the rules are less likely to be concerned with the exact extent of the power of player characters, or with the reasonable relative difficulty of things they might do – both central concerns in trad RPG. Rather, the rules are a framework to establish narrative principles. (In Dogs in the Vineyard, having a lot of dice for a relationship doesn’t necessarily mean that the relationship is strong, or even that the character considers it important – it means that the player thinks it’s interesting and wants it to be significant to their character’s story.)
- No dice, or dice in a greatly reduced role. Where storygames do use dice, they are much more likely to use d6 only. When dice appear, they’re often still used for ‘make a good roll to have your character succeed,’ but conflicts requiring mechanical resolution are typically only used when they’re dramatically interesting. Early storygame Primetime Adventures recommends that you only resolve conflicts mechanically if either result would be equally interesting. This is a bit difficult to strictly accomplish in practice, but a lot of storygames are working in the same ballpark. In many storygames the excitement of unexpected results comes from the inventiveness of other players, not from mechanical randomness.
- Low focus on combat. Many storygames have no specialised rules for violence at all; violence is handled like any other conflict or event or whatever. Others do, but they tend to consider it in terms of dramatic effect and story consequences rather than tactics and simulation.
- Failure-driven narrative. In a high proportion of storygames, failure at some scale is central to the generation of plot. Sometimes this means the inevitable death of most of the characters (Geiger Counter, Final Girl, Carolina Death Crawl), or the collapse of a whole society (Polaris, Downfall). Sometimes it’s more open-ended, and just means that the central engine of plot is player characters fucking up (Monsterhearts, Fiasco). Sometimes the mechanics are framed such that even mechanical success is likely to entail failure at a more important level (Shooting the Moon, Monsterhearts).
- No power curve. In most trad RPG, player characters progress steadily, gaining better skills, stats and resources and becoming more powerful. In storygames this is typically absent or less important; character development is often expressed mechanically, but it’s unlikely to be in terms of steadily increasing power.
- A focus on political and social themes. Common themes include culture, community, ethics. Many storygames are focused on specific issues of progressive politics: Dog Eat Dog with colonialism, Dream Askew with queerness, Night Witches with feminism. Several focus on the internal conflicts and power-struggles of communities (Downfall, Kingdom, The Quiet Year); others are less specific but are always about some social issue (Shock).
A focus on the interpersonal. In Fiasco characters are created from their connections to one another; they exist as relationships before they exist as individuals. In Shooting the Moon the Suitors are created as reflections of the Beloved’s traits. In Hillfolk the most important motivations of the PCs can only be satisfied by other PCs. In Downfall the collapse of society is expressed and reflected through relationships. Many storygames focus on conflict and tension between PCs, rather than PCs united against external challenges.
- A focus on the intrapersonal. Dreaming Crucible and Penny For My Thoughts are both about the internal lives of deeply troubled people. In other games, players are encouraged to talk about character motivations and thoughts (even, or especially, if these would be hidden from other characters). ‘Games about feelings.’
A heavy emphasis on player safety. Storygames venture into potentially traumatic or triggery material relatively often, and storygames and their communities tend to have a corresponding emphasis on protecting players – generally through vocabularies of consent, trust, and the right to establish boundaries. (We are perhaps a little smug about the inevitable parallels this draws to kinky sex.) Rather than thinking about boundary-negotiation as forbidding content, the stress is usually that it makes a greater range of content possible.
- Designed for single-session play. Some storygames enforce this (Fiasco); others allow multi-session play but assume single-session as the use case (Microscope).
- Experimental and indie. There’s a lot of stress on trying things that are new and distinctive, whether in content or mechanics. This means that games are very diverse, but sometimes leads to unpolished design and Not Invented Here syndrome.
- Informed by movies and TV, and to a lesser degree theatre; drawing heavily on their language and dramatic conventions.
I should reiterate that there’s no hard delineation here; very few storygames share all of these features. Powered by the Apocalypse games are storygame-ish in some important ways (non-simulationist, heavy interpersonal focus, failure-driven), but they have a GM, resolve conflicts based on dice, play better as campaigns than one-shots, and have some simple leveling which makes characters (somewhat) more capable. Dogs in the Vineyard definitely has some strong storygame-like traits, but in other ways it’s much closer to a traditional RPG: a complex conflict-resolution system with lots of dice, a GM who has to do a good deal of prep work, hidden information, PCs who act as a party. Fate has strong storygame-ish elements, but a lot of people wouldn’t consider it a storygame.
And a lot of this is about community expectations of play as much as it is about mechanical features of the game. You can play D&D as a storygame if you want – but, crucially, D&D isn’t designed to support that style very well.
Naturally, the extent to which storygame players identify certain features as central to storygames will vary depending on which aspects are most important to them. Some people and groups put a very high stress on the GM-less aspect: they argue that an important role of storygames is to create a genuinely inclusive environment, and that for some players the power-imbalance inherent in GMs is a turn-off. For some people, the goal is to largely replicate a traditional action-oriented RPG kind of narrative – they still want to be telling stories about heroic fantasy adventure, they just want to approach that in a low-mechanics narrative way rather than as a simulationist or tactical exercise.
So, hm. What parts of all that do I care about most?
* OK, OK, just one example. Within videogames, a lot of people have the very strong assumption that ‘story’ means something linear and minimally flexible, separate from the core activity of the game and externally imposed upon it. The player’s activity can do little to influence this sense of ‘story’ – it’s the sort of thing experienced mainly through cutscenes and journal entries. So sometimes when I say ‘RPGs with emphasis on story’, people can get the idea that I’m talking about something like Dragonlance – RPG scenarios or campaigns that aim mostly to recapitulate a pre-determined plot and characters. And that’s almost precisely what I don’t mean!
“Emphasis on” presupposes that this is 1) a sub-element and 2) in some manner distinguishable from the thing itself. So perhaps, rather, “a game played by storytelling” or some such, which doubly underscores the active process and players’ participation.
Nice post, Sam. I would say that of the elements you list, the most central ones are probably:
* collaborative creativity through play / no myth (aka Story Now)
* distributed GM authority
* divorce between player and player character
Would you agree?
Those are pretty crucial, but I think that non-simulationism is at least as significant. And it’s difficult to isolate these elements, because a lot of them are interrelated – so, for instance, the nature of the divorce between player and PC is strongly bound up with the rejection of tactical play.
If we think back to the old GNS-theory of Ron Edwards, do you think there’s any appreciable difference between the terms “Narrativist RPGS” and “story games”? After all, a narrativist rpg is by definition one that (a) emphasises collaborative on the spot storytelling, and (b) de-emphasises both simulation and tactical play. A lot of the other elements, like distributed GM authority, follow because they turn out to be the best (or at least very good and versatile) ways to implement a narrativist creative agenda.
If we think back to the old GNS-theory of Ron Edwards, do you think there’s any appreciable difference between the terms “Narrativist RPGS” and “story games”?
Hmm. I think they’re pretty close, and a lot of storygames are definitely the work of Forge veterans. But I generally prefer to describe sets empirically – here’s the category as it’s used out in the wild – rather than come up with a Fundamental Motive and try to define a category in terms of that.
(Part of this, also, comes down to my reading ‘story’ as a really broad category. Like, I think that Tom Clancy fans like stories – they just like their stories to have a lot of military equipment specifications and right-wing jingoism. Similarly, I think that a lot of hardcore-tactics RPG enthusiasts also value and enjoy story – it’s just that the stories they’re interested in telling are about different stuff.)
There are difficulties with GMless vis-a-vis narrative – for instance, without a GM it can be difficult to manage narrative direction / story arc, particularly when the general shape of the arc isn’t predetermined by genre or game structure.
I can’t help but think of storygames as less of a specific genre or type of game and more as a movement; “storygame RPG” being the same sort of phrase as “expressionist film” or “brutalist building.” As such it’s more about an ethos or set of goals than about specific means of achieving them or about specific characteristics that the resulting games have. So I prefer to talk about a storygame canon as being a set of games created by a certain set of authors (and I believe “storygame” also implies a certain mode of production) at a certain point in time following certain shared ideas, as opposed to a specific set of classifications that would create a timeless “storygame” category.
It’s particularly true, for instance, that the various ideas and methods that storygame authors have come up with are useful in their own right and not part of a matched set; you can look at 13th Age, which is in all respects another iteration of the D&D model, but it uses ideas gleaned from storygames to allow for zero-prep play. Similarly, 5th Edition D&D has begun to incorporate a few things that are typical of some storygames (enumerated lists of character backgrounds as a shortcut to character-building – a thing that some storygames embrace and others eschew, of course).
“storygame RPG” being the same sort of phrase as “expressionist film” or “brutalist building.” As such it’s more about an ethos or set of goals than about specific means of achieving them or about specific characteristics that the resulting games have.
So, you’re not wrong – like, this is obviously where storygames come from, and this is why I have a messy cluster-concept definition rather than a two-clause sentence. But… well, things don’t have a Fundamental Platonic Essence, right? Definitions are tools, particularly when we’re talking about artistic or cultural phenomena. Your approach is useful if you’re talking about aetiology, about where storygames or brutalist architecture come from, about explaining why this particular cluster of things all comes under the same umbrella.
But I might also want a definition that will be useful to me if I’m walking down the street and want to be able to recognise which buildings are brutalist or brutalist-inspired, without knowing their individual histories. Or maybe (being horribly misguided) I want to design a brutalist-inspired building myself – in both cases, an understanding based on the features of the style is going to be more useful than its historical context.
(In other words, there is room in the world for both Kripke and Wittgenstein.)
Oh, sure. But even then I would look at it more from the end of what specific experiences storygames are supposed to be and what goals they’re trying to reach, as opposed to a specific methodology for reaching that goal. Maybe the prototypical storygame is a mostly-diceless, GM-less game, but -World games are very popular and they feature both frequent dice rolling and a very powerful GM; I think ethos/goals provide a more strong continuity of common features between those games than necessarily specific mechanics. Fiasco and Monsterhearts are mechanically almost diametric opposites in many ways, but they’re very similar in the sort of experience they’re trying to produce (collaborative, improvisational, no-myth, focused on the interpersonal, designed for adult audiences).
One thing you didn’t touch on that I think is kind of core to storygame identity is that storygames are games for adults – it’s a little ironic that the level of boundary work that Monsterhearts requires is quite beyond what actual teenagers should be expected to be able to deal with, for instance. And I don’t mean just that those games are about adult themes or that they feature more violence (physical or otherwise) or sex than we’re comfortable with in games for teenagers; but also that those games tend to be designed to fit better into the lives of adult players. Low/no-prep gameplay, for instance, is naturally an outgrowth of designing RPGs for people with jobs; most storygames either ditch campaign play entirely or they try to condense it down into a set of tools that aren’t too onerous on player time; Apocalypse World is at least 50% a toolbox of time- and effort-saving GM techniques.
Also: Sam, don’t go. It’s never too late to burn the ticket and stay in Seattle FOREVER.
The repeated emphasis on “optimizing your character’s experience” vs “allowing bad things to happen to your character” is interesting. A lot of freeform roleplaying games practically wallow in tragedy etc., though I doubt they are considered “storygames” on account of literally just being a group of people getting together to collaboratively tell a story in such a way that each participant primarily is responsible for the storytelling for a particular character or set of characters.
“Player success detached from player-character success.” Honestly, I’ve always considered this detachment one of the signs of real mastery of the traditional non-story RPG.
The problem is that, in traditional games, making decisions that are poor for the character can take you out of the game (“you chose dramatically and put yourself in danger, but now you’re out of hit points, so you have to sit and wait until someone heals you”)
Our gaming experiences, or our definition of “mastery” of the form, clearly differ.
Feel free to elaborate, or drop it. Your call.
Our use of the English language clearly differs.
SJR thinks mastery includes dramatic mastery, even at the cost of mechanical downtime, and implies that Ben considers mastery to only encompass mechanical success. There’s no need to be brusque about it. Communication is difficult enough as is!
No, sincerely, I have no idea (and meant no implication) on what Ben supposes mastery of the form is like. I just know that the “problem” he describes is, to those who game well, _not a problem at all._ That’s it. Nothing hidden, nothing encoded, and certainly nothing on which to “elaborate.”
Pingback: January Link Assortment | Emily Short's Interactive Storytelling
I’ve been flummoxed before trying to explain to friends what I mean when I say “storygame.” I like that rather than try to pin down a single defining trait of what is actually a very diverse genre, you give a collection of things that make story games different (for better or worse.) I read this article and found myself nodding, even about the parts of storygames that I find more off-putting. I especially appreciate that you expressed this in a way that isn’t dismissive of traditional RPGs.
I just wanted to comment that I love your thoughts on anything and everything you’ve ever posted to this blog and look forward to the day when you put your next article up.
Much appreciated, Robb. Hopefully normal service will be resuming any day now.
To me games are about solving puzzles, traditional RPGs are very literal about their approach. If your character doesn’t have the lock-picking skill than they are going to have a hard time doing that.
Because a person in world can’t succeed simply because they’re role in the group is to be the sneaky-skulduggery person. Your loved ones being held in the Dreadlord’s Doom Fortress isn’t going to make you any better at scaling the walls,in fact being emotional might well make you less capable.
In games like Fate and Fantaji, narrative(meta-game) aspects directly influence the game mechanics. What your character is in the story effects game play.
To my biased eyes a lot of what “Storytelling games” are designed to do and why people who swear by the like them, are because “STGs” are more figurative/narrative than literal and deemphasize the puzzle solving aspect of game play.
Once game is taken out of role playing game,what you have is a system for collaborative improvisational storytelling.
Yeah, we mean very different things by ‘game’, then. To me the archetypical game – the ur-game from which all other games descend – is Let’s Pretend, so ‘a system for collaborative improvisational storytelling’ is *necessarily* a game. ‘Games’ in the game-theory sense – bounded systems of rules with a success condition – are a subcategory of that.
The other thing: trad RPGs are only ‘literal’ in very focused areas. D&D, for instance, cares more about combat than anything else in its world, but it still abstracts a lot of stuff for the sake of the kind of experience it wants to deliver. Physical damage is mostly abstracted into ‘hit points’, an imaginary thing that doesn’t really represent the real complexities of physical trauma very well. (The mental trauma of exposure to violent situations – an extremely real thing in the real world – isn’t modeled at all.) This is because D&D doesn’t want to tell stories about war veterans who’ve been in a couple of battles in their whole life and carry permanent damage from it; it wants to tell fantastic stories of glorious heroes and their long-arc adventures, and (meta-game) to make combat a fun and tactically interesting experience that players are enthusiastic about getting into, rather than a brief, messy business that sensible people will avoid unless absolutely necessary.
So trad RPGs are figurative too – it’s just that their narrative elements are less explicit, because they’re baked into the structure of the game.
A game is a puzzle,a question that all participants are trying to answer. To make the process of solving the puzzle more difficult all players are given a limited means by which they may attempt to solve the puzzle. Further complicating the process are adverse and termination conditions,things that if triggered will hinder a players ability to solve the puzzle
or eject them from the game.
D&D does have a story tacitly embedded into it’s structure a Picaresque one.
What separates rpgs from stgs,is how much the narrative is allowed to influence game mechanics.
I feel that Hit points are literal just not very realistic,a more complex system than take X amount of damage would be needed to capture injuries.
Pingback: Les différents noms des histoires interactives – Fiction-interactive.fr