Roleplay vs Storytelling

I'm going to begin with the following statement:  One is not inherently better than the other, they are simply different, and I have my preferences. This is not an attack on either style of RP, but just my thoughts on the subject matter.

That out of the way,

I like crunch. I like detail.
I don't write games with a lot of crunch, because I'm casting a wide net - I want to write games that are easy for children and adults, and which allows you to put as much detail into the game as you want. The ASPS engine can be a streamlined, simple game with a focus on narrative play, or it can be resource heavy and detailed if that's your preference. The soon-to-be-released Keepsakes (was Widdershins) is incredibly simple, because it's supposed to be an all-ages game.

But yeah. I want a game where poison is lethal, you need to keep track of that stuff and prepare for it. I want a game where if you're out in the wilderness, there's things like exposure, and you could die from the elements. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, and that's okay.

I prefer a game where the "Story" is about the actions of the characters on the world, and how the world reacts to it, with all the ugly bits - the great dice rolls that takes out the BBEG in the first round, and the crap dice rolls which gets the paladin ganked by a goblin in an instant. The great plans which go off without a hitch and make the adventure a cakewalk, and the terrible plans which doom the characters to failure from the get-go.

I'm not so keen on games where the "Story" is so important that rules are ignored (or just don't exist at all), or things are handwaved because they contradict the "Story" being told. The kind of games where the characters survive because they're 'supposed to make it to the end' or 'the death doesn't mean anything'. Or where the bad guy survives for as long as the game master thinks it's interesting. That kind of thing.

There's a place for those games, and if you enjoy those games, cool - I have you have a blast. But it just isn't for me. For me, the play, the dice, the good and bad choices, those are what makes it a game, and I feel that the actions I take, the dice I roll, they matter. I get to live or die by my choices, by the group's choices, and the fickle nature of the dice.

That being said, some of the game settings I've seen for more narrative games are pretty neat, and I'd love to play in those settings. On the flipside, some that I've seen have no setting at all, it's just a 'here's how you play the game', and the rest is up to the group. Fair enough. I prefer my game engine to be integrated into the setting - the mechanics define how the setting works, and is tailored to that setting.  Keepsakes is an example of those, ASPS is designed so that those who want to craft their worlds can do exactly that (look at Fox Magic as an example).

I've seen people who crap on Storytelling games, saying they're not really games. I disagree, in that it's still got the proper elements: it's a form of entertainment, it challenges the players, it's got rules. It's not a Choose Your Own Adventures, there's more to it than that, and it evolves and has its unpredictable moments, so in my books it's a game. Not as crunchy as some of the games I've seen and played, but Fiasco, Fate, and Lords of Gossamer and Shadow still counts in my books just as much as Dungeons and Dragons, Shadowrun, and Eclipse Phase.

People have their preference, and there's no need to yuck another person's yum. If the game isn't for you, or the style of play isn't for you - then don't play the game. Walk away, enjoy what you enjoy and let other people enjoy what they enjoy.

Now let's talk about the quantum ogre in the room - I couldn't avoid this:

That - narrative vs simulationist games (let's say) - and live-and-let-live doesn't extend to whether or not games should have representation. That's a very different beast, and has nothing at all to do with the type of game being played and everything to do with people feeling welcome at the table.

And if you don't want to deal with that - with ensuring people feel seen at the gaming table - that's your choice. However, that doesn't mean I'll let stand the attacks on people who do want to be seen. It costs you nothing to let a game to have representation -- and it costs them a lot to not have it. Don't want it? You don't bring it into play. You want it? It's there. That's how it should be, and crapping on people for wanting to be seen in the game just makes you a dick.

That is all.

If you don't like that Blue Rose is LGBT friendly, don't play Blue Rose.  Just don't crap on the people who do like Blue Rose. If you don't like the idea of wheelchairs in fantasy, then don't use wheelchairs at your table - just don't crap on the games and people who do. Get it? Got it? Good.

Until next time.