I hate narrative RPG's but I'm okay with the fact that they exist and that people play them

I hate narrative RPG's but I'm okay with the fact that they exist and that people play them.

Fuck you and your toxic attitude, my dude.

If you want to crunch numbers why don't you play one of the hundreds of fantastic boardgames out there? They are tight, interesting systems.

RPGs are for telling stories.

This is now a shit posting thread

>Fuck you and your toxic attitude, my dude.
>proceeds to insult someone's preferred method of play
How about fuck you.

>RPGs are for telling stories
>If you want to crunch numbers why don't you play one of the hundreds of fantastic boardgames out there
RPGs are many different things to many different people. If you want to have a good story how about you read a book or a CYOA.

This is my way of saying you might have a reading disability.

Literature is for telling stories, the main benefit that rpgs have over other mediums is the high level of interactivity which really fits well with simulationism and game play revolving around creative problem solving, story is a good addition to this but not the main point

What if it's done right? What if you build a world detailed enough that the players can adventure around and write the story themselves, using the tools you provided.
I don't think there's only the two extremes here. You can have a good narrative campaign with lots of action, can't you?

I should rephrase, RPGs create stories. The fact no one person is telling it is the strength. You're bouncing off each others' ideas and getting somewhere that no one of you alone could have.

Instead of telling me to read a book you should tell me to do improv theatre.

If simulationism isn't serving a good story or an interesting problem it's best done away with.
You don't track your bladder fullness in your RPGs, do you?

OP here, yes I agree you can have a good 'narrative' campaign in that a good story can come out of things and that that is one of the main goals to some extent, though it is by my preference a byproduct of action and circumstances within the campaign rather than some colluded-upon twisting of narrative branches. Of course you should always set up events and NPCs to facilitate that to some extent, while also ideally ensuring that they meet some bare representation of plausibly independent entities and fit the imagined reality to an acceptable degree (which of course depends on your group).

When a great story comes out of "real" events in-game with no predisposition, [for me and my group] it's that much sweeter. Pure player action, personal/character involvement, risk and reward, 'real' heroics and actions in and amongst a somewhat-simulated world.

I'm not saying my way is the right or the best way at all, just telling my opinion. It's also more of a spectrum from narrative to simulation and etc., GNS isn't really a very usable model as hammered out by the Forge.

I should've used a different word other than simulationism since it implies realism, what I meant is that TTRPGs deliver an immersive experience and that I would prioritize the player 's experience and agency over story to a degree as it feels like a waste to ignore the interactive aspect of TTRPG and that certain rule sets that prioritize storytelling can be jarring when the world they create acts according to narrative laws rather than simply existing.

I think they're okay for people to like.

RPGs are for presenting your friends with a challenge, and watching them overcome it.

You're not "telling them a story", because there's not just one story, and you're not telling it, everyone is telling it. It need not even end.

>RPGs create stories
Well yeah. But there's a difference between metagame mechanics which manuplate from the narrative exterior ala Director vs. Actor stance, and mechanics which simply result in 'story' as an incidental byproduct of the occurring events akin to what are often described as 'sim' mechanics. It's an easily observable difference between various playstyles.

I don't think anyone is arguing they would rather not have any narrative at all in an RPG. That's clearly what people play them for, at least as one facet of the hobby. Otherwise as you say entertainment could be better had elsewhere. Everyone comes to RPG's for some kind of mixture, even if they lean heavily in one direction or another. But almost no system is 'pure' in any singular respect, nobody argues that seriously. It's simply a preference of what someone is willing to grok in a system, which is usually some combination of mechanics from various inclinations which happens to be digestible to that individual gamer.

I don't even tend to define RPG's by 'narrative', 'gamist', 'sim' etc. because many of them share mechanics from different 'spheres', yet still the mechanics themselves are fairly easily sorted between IC and OOC.

You can't call out the purpose of RPGs ("the stories"?) without understanding the variety of reasons people actually play them for.

Also ultimately it boils down to individual "fun", the best buzzword of all time.

At what point does something become a Narrative RPG?

I ran a game using the bare bones of a system because most of it didn't apply, did that count?

I once played in a game without a system but had very defined rules about how magic and the world functioned, did that count?

He already said he enjoyed the collaborative aspect, I don't know if he cares about challenging the players though

Not OP but I would define a narrative rpg as an rpg with an emphasis on mechanics designed to create a narrative not necessarily one that is rules light

If I didn't want there to be context behind any of the numbers I'd just throw dice with some dudes in an alley.

I enjoy narrative RPGs. I'm totally up for playing some Microscope or The Quiet Year. But I can also have fun playing GURPS or D&D.

What annoys me is when there's awkward dissonance between narrative elements and "mechanical" elements.

"Compel an Aspect" in FATE is a good example. FATE is set-up much like D&D: a GM who simulates the world and players who simulate characters. Much like a stage actor, the player is encouraged to "get into character": to think like their character so that they can make choices and take actions in a more authentic way.
Most mechanics are designed to simulate/simplify the character. The player can look at a 10-foot gap, look at their +3 Athletics skill, and say "my character can jump this". Similarly, the character can look at a 10-foot gap, reflect on their own athletic abilities, and say "I can jump this".
"Compel" throws all that shit out the window. Accepting a Compel means that your character is failing an action, in return for a narrative point that the player gets to use later. It's a narrative mechanic that completely undermines all of the non-narrative mechanics that are designed to help the players play their characters.

Compare that to something like Dungeon World's "Defy Danger" mechanic:
>On a 7-9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will off you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.
So, the GM might say "You charge forward with your spear, but the orc manages to grapple the farmer and hold him in front. Do you want to keep going and skewer them both, or do you avert your attack?" There's no narrative dissonance, because the player's dilemma is aligned with the character's dilemma.

>RPGs are for telling stories.

If I wanted to hear a story I'd buy a book. I don't want to spend my night having the DM tell me their bad fanfiction.

>RPGs are for creating your own emergent narratives.

That example is not a Defy Danger it's a Hack and Slash, I think... which is bad because H&S has different mechanics from DD, based around depleting HP, which is bad because there's no "in character" dilemma, which is bad because.... DW is not the best AW game is what I'm trying to say, okay?

is this satire

A compel isn't failing an action, you gibbering spackwagon, it's saying your character is likely to fuck up or have trouble with (insert thing here). You can hand over a fate point to tell the GM to calm his tits if for some reason having narrative drama triggers you so badly.
At no point does a Compel require a roll or "action", and FATE has as much to do with simulating as a hole in the ground. Learn to fucking read.

What do you think of the 2d20 systems' Momentum engine?

That's what I thought too, but I wonder if the replies are as well.

Fuck everyone in this thread tbhfam