Are you a "traditional gamer" or a "story gamer"?

I don't understand the difference. Where did these terms come from? What are you defining them as? Otherwise I might as well pull a Scotsman and go 'no TRUE traditional gamer wouldn't enjoy a good story'

Mostly I'm a "wargamer" rather than either of those two. "Traditional gamer" comes closer to my attitude, but the tradition I come from is Battletech rather than early edition d&d.

Fundamentally a Story Gamer I think. The purpose of the game in my eye is to craft an interesting and fun narrative for everyone involved. If that means fudging a rule here or there, maybe simplifying a certain mechanic, then so be it.

That said, I do think they're 'games' for a reason, and I've never been especially fond of free-form RPGs, or house-ruling to the point that the original game becomes unrecognizable.

Game mechanics aren't the be-all-end-all, but they *do* serve as a focus and anchor for the experience. Jeopardize that too much, and you just end up with everyone at the table arguing about how their interpretation/modification of a rule is superior, and suddenly goal #1 is just as unattainable as if everyone was a powergamer going unerringly by book.

He's trying to bait us in a Forge (and post-Forge) vs anti-Forge argument.

>I mostly don't play games where the rules are "DM decides", but then, I don't bitch about that shit either

I think the mechanical composition of the world and the narrative are both very important, it's hard to run a game about scary monsters or something if all your monsters have no bite and just get trounced by PCs.

I play RPG's for "the story", but I prefer "traditional" mechanics as opposed to narrative mechanics.

Why?

Story is the most interesting bit to me, but it doesn't feel like a convincing series of events unless the game mechanics are grounded it some form of reality. When amazing things happen, they're TRULY amazing, not simply narrative convention or spend X points to do X amazing feat because "muh agency".

...Forge? What is forge?

Get the fuck outta here Ron Edwards that shit ain't real.

It's meaningless shit that fuckers who are embarrassed about their hobby use to categorize and pidgeonhole something that is defined on an individual basis. It stopped being popular around 2009 and fucking died in 2012. People still regurgitate that shit here because the sources still exist, older Forge influenced GM may still hold onto those bullshit GNS theories, and Veeky Forums is nothing if not impressionable to the ideas of idiots pretending to understand.

therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2013/11/swine-pseudo-activism.html

This post explains it better than I ever could, even though I personally disagree with the parallels made with White Wolf games as that depended on the play style of the group just like everything else. That said at the turn of the century I was definitely one of those pseudo-artistic shitters.

TLDR: Story game vs. traditional game = pseudo-Intellectual bullshit and sales-bait for people who aren't even in the business anymore because they destroyed their own community.

What about people who embrace the story game vs traditional games extreme though?

e.g. improvisational storytelling groups who barely roll dice vs OSR guys who just want to explore a dungeon and kill monsters?

In fact I'd say both groups are very tolerant of each other. It's not like there's a holier-than-thou war going on, it's just that most players lie somewhere in the middle.

What about the people who follow the Bible literally and the people who are only nominally Christian?

Yes, it's a different scenario with its own sensitive issues, but there's the same level of variance, the same extremes, but almost everyone seems to agree that either extreme is not the best way of doing things, and instead argues for a middle (even with the problems that come with such a middling area being ignored).

So why argue for either extreme, if everyone's generally more happy in the middle and generally find either extreme unsavory?

Depends. If "story gamer" means "let's ignore common sense for the sake of plot" or "the GM has already planned the story and your decisions have little to no meaning", then I'm definitely not that. I'm also not a "game gamer" if that means ignoring common sense for the sake of the rules or that I can't do something because it isn't described in the rules.

I am firmly pro-skub.

I am anti-skub.

You'd better embrace the skub right fucking now you fucking faggot.

What kind of difference is this? No, really, what the fuck, OP? No definition, just open ended question with heavily implying.

I am a story gamer, as long as the story is written all together with the other player - and as long I still feel I'm actually playing a game.

I'm a half-fae catboy!

Neither of those terms mean anything. You just made them up. You're going to have to use actual words that mean things if you want to have a discussion,
But of course that's not what you want, you miserable troll.

Is OP pic briar harlots sweets girl?

>boy
Nice you've specified that user, avoided us hell lot of confusion and awkward situations

Story. I like rules, but in the end if you are just playing for weekly combat, you can just play Warhammer or some shit. That is why it is a roleplaying game and not just a game.

As said having rules is still going to be handy for making a coherent world.

I could be a girl catboy! You don't knyow!

I'm a team gamer, I build support characters and then try to jive with the group on the focus of the campaign. I prefer story heavy games but totally roll with other balances too.

This is the first time I've heard "story gamer" used as a term. Frankly I think it was just made up to propose a false dichotomy and foment an argument about "narrativist" and "gamist" roleplaying game philosophies.