Storytelling RPGs: What are they?

As promised, starting from November 1, 2013 the blog is switching back to English.

David Reichgeld has arrived at an interesting definitions of storytelling RPGs:

1) A storytelling RPG gives at least one person at the table narration rights.

In a traditional RPG, the only person to hold narration rights is the GM. He alone can introduce new facts and truths into the game world. The players usually only react to the descriptions of the GM. Without any person to hold narration rights, the game is not really an RPG. In a storytelling RPG, the players have a way to gain the narration rights in some way, e.g. by rolling dice, spending tokens or playing cards. They get to add to the game world.

2) A storytelling RPG gives the players (as opposed to the GM) the right to narrate not only their actions, but also the consequences of their actions.

In a traditional RPG, the players describe their (re)actions to GM-introduced events, and the GM describes the outcome of these events. In a storytelling RPG, the players also have the right to narrate consequences to their actions. Maybe not always, maybe depending on some condition to gain the narration rights, e.g. rolling a high enough result, succeeding at their task or spending some sort of tokens.

If those two definitions are applied to RPGs, then suddenly it becomes a bit easier to separate traditional RPGs from storytelling RPGs. Indeed, suddenly you realize that the whole World of Darkness line-up, despite the name of the system are not storytelling games at all. But other games are. Houses of the Blooded, Numenera, Dungeon World and FATE come to mind. Everway, for example, shows the first glimmers of being a storytelling game. All you have to do is passing the interpretation of the fortune deck from GM to players.

Do I believe in this definition? Yes, I do. That's why I am including it in my blog. Am I going to add to that point of view? Not for the moment. But feel free to comment on this post.

The Computer Skill: To have or not to have

Many modern role-playing games contain a computer skill. Justin Achilles observed in the Vampire 20th Anniversary Edition design diary that the computer skill has changed in the past couple of decades. In the 20th century, the skill was about general computer know-how. How to set them up and get them to do what you want. It was a new technology and maintaining a computer was usually done by the same guys that also knew how to handle them.

Fast forward about 20 years. Everybody is using computer, smart phones and tablets. Hardly anyone, except specialist knows how to program or maintain them. Computers have become ubiquitous everyday items. There is no reason to call them out with a special skill anymore. Repairing them can be covered by the Craft skill, using them for gather information is covered by Research (or Investigation). The only remaining exciting use in a role-playing game remains Hacking.

There are two ways to cover this: if a game is all about hacking or it is at least a big part of the setting, create a skill for that. Don't call it Computer, be exciting and call it Hacking or Slicing. If the game is not about hacking, but one player still wants to be an expert hacker, give him a stunt that let's her perform as a computer hacker with a skill already present in the setting.

For my urban fantasy game, I will not include a hacking skill. If somebody wants to be able to accomplish digital intrusion, he can take a stunt based on the Burglary skill.

Magic Systems: Art or Obsession?

Why are so many gamers obsessed with having a "magic system" in FATE Core? After the Magic System Toolbox preview was published, a chorus of voices demanded a "generic" magic system. I don't get it. A magic system serves a purpose in Dungeons & Dragons, in GURPS or whatever crunchy system you prefer.
Usually, the purpose of the magic system is making a character more powerful or breaking the game rules. Also, usually it doesn't mesh very well with the rest of the system: low-level wizards are cannon-fodder compared to a low-level fighter, and that supposedly makes up for a reversed situation at higher levels. But in reality it doesn't.

FATE Core doesn't emulate physics, it emulates story. FATE Points, aspects, stunts and skills lend your character weight in the story. They only remotely relate to physics. An aspect can be invoked or compelled, stunts add a new action to a skill or add a bonus to an action or create a rules exception, skills let you overcome an obstacle or create an advantage or attack or defend. These are the narrative currencies of the game. This way, each character gets to be equally awesome. The Extras chapter in the FATE Core preview even talk about the costs of Extras in terms of aspects, skills or stunts/refresh. This abstract measure is used for balancing.

In my opinion you don't need a magic system. All magic can expressed in skills, stunts and aspects. The Magic System Toolkit goes on to illustrate that and even hands you systems for summoning, something the FATE Core rules don't really hint at.

In FATE Core, magic shouldn't be an excuse to be more awesome or rules-breaky than everyone else, because FATE Core allows you to create characters with the same narrative weight. An eloborate system also tends to add complexity on top of a simple and elegant system. A real magic system with bells, whistles and complexity only makes sense, if the campaign revolves around magic and magic-using people like witches, wizard & superheroes. Because then, you need to differentiate between the magic-users or they will all feel pretty much the same. In all other circumstances, it is enough to define the magic the character uses (as opposed to a whole system) or the group sees in action (usually by fighting enemy spellcasters). That can be handled easily with aspects, skills and stunts without need of a complex system.

Just my 0.02 €