Did you mean Adventure Game?

[Cluedrew]

So an old and learned man spoke of how older versions of D&D were known as a fantasy adventure game. (It was 2D8HP, and I'm sure he could elaborate if you asked.) Since that time I have found myself crashing violently into people's positions over an issue related to this. Most recently Cosi and I had a back-and-forth on whether you should start at challenges or story for designing a system. And I think there is a more core issue here.

Do you want a role-playing game or an adventure game? Before anyone calls me out on one-true-way, this references a description of role-playing games I wrote a while back, describing systems as a mix of a series of sub-games. A one line description of each:

• Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context.
• Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
• Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
• Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

Note that although role-playing game is listed here, that is different from the genre, which contains variable amounts of the name sake role-playing. In many (notably D&D) the second adventure type is usually more prominent. Unfortunately any game that mixes the first three seems to be called a role-playing game now.

But if that were not the case and we had more precise terms for that: Would you be talking about adventure games instead of role-playing games? Do you like the role-playing part as much or more than the adventuring? Are you here for the challenges and problem solving instead of the "how does my character break the bad news to the rest of the party?" I think we may have gotten the names a bit muddled along the way.

The same can probably be said for Story-Telling Games as well, but around here is seems to be a less relevant distinction.

[Nifft]

So an old and learned man spoke of how older versions of D&D were known as a fantasy adventure game.

Gosh, I wonder why Fantasy Adventure Game didn't catch on as a moniker, while RPG did.

(It was 2D8HP, and I'm sure he could elaborate if you asked.) Since that time I have found myself crashing violently into people's positions over an issue related to this. Most recently Cosi and I had a back-and-forth on whether you should start at challenges or story for designing a system. And I think there is a more core issue here.

Do you want a role-playing game or an adventure game? Before anyone calls me out on one-true-way, this references a description of role-playing games I wrote a while back, describing systems as a mix of a series of sub-games. A one line description of each:

• Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context.
• Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
• Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
• Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

Note that although role-playing game is listed here, that is different from the genre, which contains variable amounts of the name sake role-playing. In many (notably D&D) the second adventure type is usually more prominent. Unfortunately any game that mixes the first three seems to be called a role-playing game now.

But if that were not the case and we had more precise terms for that: Would you be talking about adventure games instead of role-playing games? Do you like the role-playing part as much or more than the adventuring? Are you here for the challenges and problem solving instead of the "how does my character break the bad news to the rest of the party?" I think we may have gotten the names a bit muddled along the way.

The same can probably be said for Story-Telling Games as well, but around here is seems to be a less relevant distinction.

I like the names & distinctions as aspects of a game, but obviously most games involve several of those (or all of them).

[Thinker]

I like the names & distinctions as aspects of a game, but obviously most games involve several of those (or all of them).

I think you have to pick one to be superior otherwise we can't be pedantic about it on the Internet.

[Anonymouswizard]

Gosh, I wonder why Fantasy Adventure Game didn't catch on as a moniker, while RPG did.

Probably didn't want more kids picking up smoking.

I like the names & distinctions as aspects of a game, but obviously most games involve several of those (or all of them).

Same here. In some ways it works with both rulesets and GM styles.

[Cluedrew]

I would just say adventure game myself, the fantasy part is kind of optional.

Also in the thread where I originally created the model I talked about how most role-playing games (in the general sense) have all four. Or at least it seems to be assumed. But if start cutting out too many of them you shift away from the role-playing game as it is commonly understood.

That isn't supposed to be the main point of the thread, but sure.

[Darth Ultron]

a mix of a series of sub-games. A one line description of each:

• Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context.
• Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
• Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
• Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

Well, I'm a deep storytelling, deep role playing, action adventure gamer myself.

I note your list does not cover some points like:

Roll-Playing Game: Dice based actions with little of anything else.

This is not an ''attack'' on such people or whatever negatives people want to apply to it. A great many gamers want to play the roll playing game. They want to do the ''my character talks to the guards and rolls a 17'' and have the DM say ''the guards let you pass''.

Game based Game: Character-skill based exploration and problem solving.

Again, not an ''attack''. As a great many gamers only want to mechanically play a character. They want all the exploration and problem solving of the adventure type game, but they the player personaly, don't want to do things in the game.

I'm making this distinction as it is a HUGE one in RPGs. Say the characters encounter a locked item with a multi colored plate and tiny moveable tokens, that when put in the right order open the item:

*Adventure Game is player based exploration and problem solving. So this is the DM giving the Players the puzzle for them to solve for real.

*Game based Game is character based. So this is the player doing an action or rolling a check for their character to solve the puzzle.

This has always been a huge split in the game, and depending in the writer the game has taken both sides. A lot of older adventures do have the players 100% figure things out, and even come with things such as player handouts . A lot of the more modern adventures use the more ''make a check to solve'' , but this was done in the past too.

[Keltest]

As with most things, this attempt to attach unnecessarily specific labels to something seems to miss the forest for the trees. Its a Tabletop Roleplaying Game. That's the only name you need. Anything else you need to attach to that is going to be specific to your group, and possibly even different to specific games among the same group. With the exception of Wargame, which legitimately describes something radically different from a D&D esque character based game, the deeper you go and the more labels you try to apply, the less accurate it will be and the more meaningless the name becomes.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, I'm a deep storytelling, deep role playing, action adventure gamer myself.

I note your list does not cover some points like:

Roll-Playing Game: Dice based actions with little of anything else.

This is not an ''attack'' on such people or whatever negatives people want to apply to it. A great many gamers want to play the roll playing game. They want to do the ''my character talks to the guards and rolls a 17'' and have the DM say ''the guards let you pass''.

Isn't that covered under the "Wargame' moniker? The label given is vague enough to allow 'beating' via non-combat means, but the essential category is reducing actions and results to dice rolls.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As with most things, this attempt to attach unnecessarily specific labels to something seems to miss the forest for the trees. Its a Tabletop Roleplaying Game. That's the only name you need. Anything else you need to attach to that is going to be specific to your group, and possibly even different to specific games among the same group. With the exception of Wargame, which legitimately describes something radically different from a D&D esque character based game, the deeper you go and the more labels you try to apply, the less accurate it will be and the more meaningless the name becomes.

I mostly agree. But I think there is value in trying to analyze and categorize the myriad preferred foci for players. Some prefer more of a character orientation. Others more of a challenge orientation. Others a more narrative orientation. Yet others a more game-mechanical orientation. Etc. Most people are a mix of various orientations, but if a DM understands what the primary ones for his players are, he can better adapt to their desires, including possibly switching systems to find one that better supports the desired play styles.

[Cluedrew]

Speaking of missing the forest for the trees: I think I'm going to have to redact that model or something it really isn't the point. (As much as I want to correct misunderstandings about it, it is not the point.) The point is: Are you here for the adventure game? OK that probably isn't going to help anyone understand what it is going on.

I'm going to need another way to describe this. This one isn't working. Maybe I should talk about the design principle disagreement that sparked this. In short Cosi said something about starting from challenges, I said you should start from story and we stopped but I was thinking about it and I think that this distinction kind of explains that difference in mind set.

I'll think about it. See if I can create a better presentation of the idea.

[Darth Ultron]

Isn't that covered under the "Wargame' moniker? The label given is vague enough to allow 'beating' via non-combat means, but the essential category is reducing actions and results to dice rolls.

I think it is notable enough to be separate.

The Wargame type game will most likely skip anything that is not combat. To even roll play ''talking'' to an NPC would be wrong and make less time for pure combat. And a Roll Playing game might very well have hours of roll playing, but no combat, and that woun't fly in a Wargame.

[Cluedrew]

OK, I can't think of another way to raise the issue except to focus in on adventure and role-playing groups. And to talk about their relative ordering proportions. Mostly I think some people seem to prefer adventure game as the core of the game over the others.

I suppose I should describe them in more detail, although I don't have time for a complete write up right now. But I will say that "roll playing" a.k.a. using a resolution mechanic to resolve something, does come from wargame. And the others as well. Because having and using rules that say how things in the game happen is part of "game", and so can come from any of the component games. These groups have fuzzy edges and overlap in places (although I have yet to find something that is not covered), which is fine because this is a communication tool, not a scientific definition.

[Pelle]

The point is: Are you here for the adventure game?

More or less, yes. Playing a single adventure, where the characters have to solve the predefined quest, doesn't really work for my group, though. But to me, the characters absolutely need to have goals they are working towards reaching by overcoming obstacles, for it to be fun and exciting. Be it solving a mystery, trying to become rich, or going after the BBEG. Engaging with the world is important, but there also needs to be challenges for it to be a worthwhile time sink. So I'm here for both the RPG and the AG.

[Quertus]

The point is: Are you here for the adventure game?

• Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context.
• Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
• Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
• Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

Hmmm... Although I'm not completely sure what you mean by STG, I'd have to say that I'm definitely here for a combination of the other three, plus other things - like spending time with friends, for example.

Oh, you like cupcakes - are you here for the cake, the icing, the size, the wrapper, or the extras? It feels to me that someone asking such a question is unlikely to get why I like cupcakes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not entirely attached to Wargaming as being distinct from a combat-focused Adventure game, but...

An alternative way of looking at it might be "what's the underlying motive driving the PLAYER'S choices," perhaps.

In a Story-Telling game, the goal is to create an overarching narrative-- you make decisions based on what will cause the most interesting conflicts and developments. Fiasco, say-- you'll gleefully do terrible things to" your" character, or sabotage goals and undo progress, in the name of Story.

In an Adventure Game, the goal is to accomplish something in-universe (kill the monsters, save the princess, explore the jungle, etc)-- you make decisions along tactical lines. What will give your characters the most success, the most progress towards their goal? Old-school D&D, from what I understand, is very much this.

Roleplaying games, I think, fall somewhere in between, where your decisions as a PLAYER are attempting to be as close as possible to what the CHARACTER would decide. You're trying to succeed at an in-universe goal, but with blinders-- you'll generally make optimal choices, except when your character's personality would dictate otherwise. Fate is a good example of this, methinks-- it rewards you for sticking with your characterization.

[Darth Ultron]

OK, I can't think of another way to raise the issue except to focus in on adventure and role-playing groups. And to talk about their relative ordering proportions. Mostly I think some people seem to prefer adventure game as the core of the game over the others.

I can see four splits here:

Mundane Gaming and Adventure Gaming
Role playing Gaming and Roll Playing Gaming

and they are put together:

Mundane Role Playing Gaming: This is the very popular way of having the characters live a second life. The game focus here is on the mundane, with deep role playing and details. This game is very heavy not just on role play in general, but the role play of every mundane part of the world. This game naturally requires real life player skills and social skills.

Mundane Roll Playing Gaming: Not too popular, but this is of course literal rolling dice for every tiny mundane action. It is literally: the DC to break open an egg and get it all in the bowl is 5, roll a 1d20 cooking skill to attempt this task. This game naturally requires real life player game knowledge mastery and game skills.

Adventure Roll Playing Gaming: This is the classic ''like a war game'', and the game does focus on an adventure, but the plot and the story are light in details and a lot is skipped over to focus on the adventure. And the vast majority of everything in the game is rolled for, always. This game naturally requires real life player game knowledge mastery and game skills.

Adventure Role Playing Gaming: The ''Other'' classic one, with the game focused on the adventure, the plot and story are heavy with details and is very inclusive of everything as part of the adventure. The vast majority of things are role played out, most notably any social interactions. This game naturally requires real life player skills and social skills.


Now it should be noted that the descriptions of Mundane, Adventure, Role Playing and Roll Playing are NOT intended in any way to be good or bad. They are just descriptions. Some people, true, are obsessed with calling some of them ''bad'', but we don't care about such people. You might like or dislike one or more of them, but that in no way makes then good or bad.

And also note the descriptions are intended to describe what happens in the game most of the time, not all of the time. A roll playing game might very well have a long role playing encounter or a role playing game might have a long roll playing encounter. Still, most of the time the game sticks to the description.

[Nifft]

I'm not entirely attached to Wargaming as being distinct from a combat-focused Adventure game, but...

I think the idea is that a Wargame has a significant "deck-building" / team-optimization phase which occurs before the game, while an Adventure Game is more focused on what any normal person could do in the adventure's environment.

[tensai_oni]

A one line description of each:

• Role-Playing Game: Making decisions as a character in a fictional context.
• Adventure Game: Player-skill based exploration and problem solving.
• Story-Telling Game: Figuring out what happens next what would be interesting to happen next.
• Wargame: Building an army (party) and using they to beat enemy forces.

This is a very good classification. I played and encountered all four of these kinds of games* and they all felt different, but also distinct enough if categorized across these lines.

*By games I obviously mean individual groups and not RPG systems in general.

I can see four splits here:

Mundane Gaming and Adventure Gaming
Role playing Gaming and Roll Playing Gaming

I disagree. Role vs roll playing kinda fits, though adventure gaming can be either, but there's nothing mundane vs adventure about this classification. Instead I'd say the split is across:

Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story

The first split describes whether in the game it's more important what your character can do or what the player controlling the character can do. Wargames (which also include hack and slash dungeon crawling) are the former because they're about fighting enemies using your character's abilities, but role-playing games are also about the former because you want to act in tune with what the character is capable of or knows. Adventure games are the latter because they tend to focus on creative problem solving, puzzles/traps, and other situations where player ingenuity is an important trait. Storytelling games are also the latter because they focus on figuring out what interesting things should happen next, and describing it in an enjoyable manner.

The second split is simple. Challenge focused-games are about overcoming obstacles. It's not necessarily about combat, traps - the obstacles could be social, political, etc in nature, but in the end it boils down to the game being a series of various encounters you need to win to progress further. Story-focused games are about telling an enjoyable tale instead. They still may contain challenges to overcome, but the focus isn't on whether heroes win the fight but did anything interesting happen during the fight.

[Quertus]

Well, I'm a deep storytelling, deep role playing, action adventure gamer myself.

I note your list does not cover some points like:

Roll-Playing Game: Dice based actions with little of anything else.

This is not an ''attack'' on such people or whatever negatives people want to apply to it. A great many gamers want to play the roll playing game. They want to do the ''my character talks to the guards and rolls a 17'' and have the DM say ''the guards let you pass''.

Game based Game: Character-skill based exploration and problem solving.

Again, not an ''attack''. As a great many gamers only want to mechanically play a character. They want all the exploration and problem solving of the adventure type game, but they the player personaly, don't want to do things in the game.

I'm making this distinction as it is a HUGE one in RPGs. Say the characters encounter a locked item with a multi colored plate and tiny moveable tokens, that when put in the right order open the item:

*Adventure Game is player based exploration and problem solving. So this is the DM giving the Players the puzzle for them to solve for real.

*Game based Game is character based. So this is the player doing an action or rolling a check for their character to solve the puzzle.

This has always been a huge split in the game, and depending in the writer the game has taken both sides. A lot of older adventures do have the players 100% figure things out, and even come with things such as player handouts . A lot of the more modern adventures use the more ''make a check to solve'' , but this was done in the past too.

I think that you are more right than people are likely to give you credit for. It's important not just to have all the right parts, but for them to be in the right places. To continue my cupcake example, the wrapper should be on the bottom of the cake, to give me something clean and solid to hold onto, and to keep the cake fresh. The icing should be on top of the cake, to keep the cake fresh, and for appearance. If the icing is beneath the wrapper, or the wrapper is chopped up and baked into the cake or sprinkled on top, it's a fail case.

Take, for example, the case where, in the GM's world, it's expected that barn fires can be put out through mundane means. This is not something that the players can just roleplay - anyone with any knowledge or intuition of how that should work will roleplay their character at odds with the rest of the world. Without a master's in "the GM's world", role-playing is not an option. So, instead, there needs to be roll-playing, and the GM needs to just give the players the knowledge that their PCs would have so as not to seem pants on head stupid - especially if they are playing the cliched "idiot farm boy".

The exception to this, of course, is characters like mine, who are "not from around here", who hail from worlds with physics that much more closely resembles that found in this world. For them, the mundanely-solvable nature of a barn fire should come as quite a shock - one which they might well choose to Explore, to determine if the nature of the hay, or of fire, or of some other physical element has caused the change, or whether barns are protected by some form of Narrativium (in which case, expect them to try to find some way to drain that Narrativium for use in the creation of Cloaks of Fire Resistance).

This is a problem many GMs - including myself - have, that we will attempt to run setting elements about which we personally lack the relevant experience. How we respond to this does a lot to determine how palatable a game is.

[RazorChain]

When I was younger I was into acting both with my school and an amateur theater group.

When acting you take on a role and you explore that role, what motivates it, why it does what it does. This means exploring it's background and even making up a background for the role you are acting.

A lot of acting training/learning focuses on improvising, making a role and improvising it.

For me RPG's are a bit like that.


If we likened this to movies then some people like action movies, not too much focus on the characters but all the action, this would be the adventure game

Then we have a movie with a complex plot that has the audience go aha in the end. This is the story telling game.

Then we have a drama with a lot of character developement. This is the Roleplaying Game.

It's all movies but just with different styles and focus.


So for me Roleplaying is about exploring a role, most people do this to a degree and some not at all.

[Darth Ultron]

Take, for example, the case where, in the GM's world, it's expected that barn fires can be put out through mundane means. This is not something that the players can just roleplay - anyone with any knowledge or intuition of how that should work will roleplay their character at odds with the rest of the world. Without a master's in "the GM's world", role-playing is not an option. So, instead, there needs to be roll-playing, and the GM needs to just give the players the knowledge that their PCs would have so as not to seem pants on head stupid - especially if they are playing the cliched "idiot farm boy".

This is not true.

Just about every RPG is based on reality as we know it, especially the elementary basic. And every game setting from Once Upon a Time Fantasy, to Far Future is set in the same basic reality. So, for example, a barn fire is exactly the same in D&D, Star Wars D6, Star Trek Adventures or Boot Hill. The barn made out of wood will burn, exactly like a real barn in our real world, and things like water or dirt can put out the fire(note: try water first).

To say a player is just going to act all clueless and be like ''well I have no idea how to put out a barn fire'' unless I can find that specific action in the rules OR the DM specifically tells me the special rules for this game reality that are the same as real life, my character can't do anything''....seems odd at best. And it's just a player being a jerk at worse. Really for a player to sit there and say ''well I did not know water puts out fire as it is not in the rules and, the DM never specifically said that it did" is just being dumb.

This is a problem many GMs - including myself - have, that we will attempt to run setting elements about which we personally lack the relevant experience. How we respond to this does a lot to determine how palatable a game is.

This is a big problem, and it's a good way to split the Average DMs from the Good DMs too and even a ''player'' and a ''DM''. The Good DM knows they don't ''have the experience'' and will better themselves and get that knowledge and experience TO run that element.

Really, no matter the setting, it will have a LOT of elements to it that an average DM simply won't know about. Even in the modern day, and a modern setting, few people know how or why anything works....and this just goes double or triple or more for anything in the past.

I do highly recommend reading a lot, traveling a lot and most of all doing at lot to get real world experience. I live nearby a ''Old Tyme Village'' and I have spend several summers working there, and everything in the village is in the 19th century (no phones, no lights, no motorcars). I have spent a summer week as a blacksmith(and I made a nail, that I still have on my wall), for example.

[Beleriphon]

I do highly recommend reading a lot, traveling a lot and most of all doing at lot to get real world experience. I live nearby a ''Old Tyme Village'' and I have spend several summers working there, and everything in the village is in the 19th century (no phones, no lights, no motorcars). I have spent a summer week as a blacksmith(and I made a nail, that I still have on my wall), for example.

I have one of those near me as well, but unless they're going to let me make a cavalry sabre I'm out Even at that a 19th century historic recreation villages isn't the same thing as a 12th century village, the knownledge of metallurgy and general availability of materials is going to be much better, even if its just a matter of using coal vs charcoal in a forge.

[Cluedrew]

Hmmm... Although I'm not completely sure what you mean by STG, I'd have to say that I'm definitely here for a combination of the other three, plus other things - like spending time with friends, for example.

Story-Telling Game? From what I know of you it probably is one you would be least interested in. It is the more out-of-character story based decisions. Compared to role-playing, correctly portraying the character takes a step down, although good consistent characters are still important there are other concerns that is fighting with. Also much more likely to have rules to let the players- to effect the environment and that sort of thing.

I'm not entirely attached to Wargaming as being distinct from a combat-focused Adventure game, but...

Funny story, first time I presented this model, they where the same group. However after a page or two I split Adventure off of war game. Short version: Wargame is the character creation mini-game while Adventure Game is figuring out all the things you can do with a 10-foot pole.

The wargame part is a lot about building a character (or skill set to generalize) and then applying those skills as is. Yes it would also include applying those skills well (again there is overlap) but that is more the area of the adventure game. In the "typical" adventure game you have little control over what abilities you get, it is a matter of using them well.

At least, that is what I had in mind when I split them up.

Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story

That might... actually be how to do it. The lines line up rather neatly so at the very least it is a nice two scale representation of the system. I originally got this model by considering what other games share elements with role-playing games and realize that there is a lot of stuff in role-playing games that is not part of "the platonic ideal" role-playing game. Which I'm not actually sure would be a lot of fun, so that isn't a problem. But what got mixed in changed a lot system to system, so I created this to talk about that. It is evolving though, this two axis thing might be more useful, I'll have to think on it.

	Focus on the character	Focus on the player
Focus on story	Role-Playing	Story-Telling
Focus on challenge	Wargame	Adventure

[Quertus]

Roleplaying games, I think, fall somewhere in between, where your decisions as a PLAYER are attempting to be as close as possible to what the CHARACTER would decide. You're trying to succeed at an in-universe goal, but with blinders-- you'll generally make optimal choices, except when your character's personality would dictate otherwise. Fate is a good example of this, methinks-- it rewards you for sticking with your characterization.

To me, war gaming is about how the playing piece interacts with the mechanics of challenges and rules; role-playing is about how the character chooses to interact with the environment.

Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story

The first split describes whether in the game it's more important what your character can do or what the player controlling the character can do. Wargames (which also include hack and slash dungeon crawling) are the former because they're about fighting enemies using your character's abilities, but role-playing games are also about the former because you want to act in tune with what the character is capable of or knows. Adventure games are the latter because they tend to focus on creative problem solving, puzzles/traps, and other situations where player ingenuity is an important trait. Storytelling games are also the latter because they focus on figuring out what interesting things should happen next, and describing it in an enjoyable manner.

The second split is simple. Challenge focused-games are about overcoming obstacles. It's not necessarily about combat, traps - the obstacles could be social, political, etc in nature, but in the end it boils down to the game being a series of various encounters you need to win to progress further. Story-focused games are about telling an enjoyable tale instead. They still may contain challenges to overcome, but the focus isn't on whether heroes win the fight but did anything interesting happen during the fight.

That might... actually be how to do it. The lines line up rather neatly so at the very least it is a nice two scale representation of the system. I originally got this model by considering what other games share elements with role-playing games and realize that there is a lot of stuff in role-playing games that is not part of "the platonic ideal" role-playing game. Which I'm not actually sure would be a lot of fun, so that isn't a problem. But what got mixed in changed a lot system to system, so I created this to talk about that. It is evolving though, this two axis thing might be more useful, I'll have to think on it.

	Focus on the character	Focus on the player
Focus on story	Role-Playing	Story-Telling
Focus on challenge	Wargame	Adventure

So, I was going to present what amounts to three of the four things here, but then I read this, and decided it was better.

However, I don't agree with the idea that role-playing involves trying to tell an enjoyable tale. Such an OOC concern is the furthest thing from my mind when trying to roleplay.

So, to try to integrate this forth idea into what I was going to say...

Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?

Story-Telling Game? From what I know of you it probably is one you would be least interested in. It is the more out-of-character story based decisions. Compared to role-playing, correctly portraying the character takes a step down, although good consistent characters are still important there are other concerns that is fighting with. Also much more likely to have rules to let the players- to effect the environment and that sort of thing.

Fair to say that that's less important to me.

However, I've been looking back on some of my old games, and wondering if I wouldn't have better stories to tell if I'd metagamed for story sometimes.

[Nifft]

Focus on the character vs Focus on the player
and
Focus on challenge vs Focus on story

	Focus on the character	Focus on the player
Focus on story	Role-Playing	Story-Telling
Focus on challenge	Wargame	Adventure

I think this is a useful jargon breakdown.

Kudos to both of you.

[Pelle]

	Focus on the character	Focus on the player
Focus on story	Role-Playing	Story-Telling
Focus on challenge	Wargame	Adventure

I am a bit skeptical, purely based on that I care mostly about the RPG and AG, which fits rather strange with that diagram. Or maybe it just explains what I think should be focus for character and player respectively...

[Darth Ultron]

	Focus on the character	Focus on the player
Focus on story	Role-Playing	Story-Telling
Focus on challenge	Wargame	Adventure

This table seems a bit mixed up.

Focus on the challenge and character fits ''wargame'', or even Roll Playing....and you can do this type of game with no plot or story like a classic ''hex crawl'', but the game can also have a plot and story. And, in any case, this game will just about always be an ''Adventure''.

Focus on the story and focus on the character seems ok, except the player does not need to tell a story to role play. They can just role play separate from the story, and the game does not even need a story.

The the twist of the two is focus on the challenge and focus on the player need not be ''an adventure'' and can very often be Story Telling. And ''adventure'' is not pure mechanics like roll playing, it also has a huge role playing part. And a great many players do like the challenge of the game to be focused on them, not the character: they want to have the fun of doing things, not just rolling some dice and having the character do things...as that falls back to roll playing.

Focus on the story and focus on the player seems a bit odd, as the story won't ever really ''focus'' on the player. And, as the player will make a character that they want to role play in a story, it does make the focus burred at best, or at worse, non extant.

Focus on the story and focus on the character seems ok, except the player does not need to tell a story to role play. They can just role play separate from the story, and the game does not even need a story.

Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?

Role Playing looks fine
I'd call ''war gaming'' Roll Playing, though it looks fine.
A story telling game does have a focus on the story, so fine here.

But the Adventure game does seem odd to focus on the player. Maybe this should be more like ''action game"?

Adventure, and Mundane might need to be separate categories. Adventure for fiction and Mundane for reality gaming.

''Adventure'' need to be broken up between ''action and mundane'' AND ''Roll and Role playing''. Adventure is not just roll playing the mechanics.

[jayem]

Perhaps Roll-playing (Gambling) could fit between Story and Role-play.
It's kind of like a challenge, but you don't really think things through and plan them.
And it's not really got the depth of focusing on story, but you do care about events and have to move on.

Quite where mundane type things would go. You don't really have a challenge or true story. Perhaps you could have Focus on character as a yet another row entry.
And then change the columns to Player perspective and Character perspective.

That gives

	Character perspective	Player perspective
Focus on story	Acting/Drama	Story telling
Focus on character	Role play	??Characture study??
----	----	----	----
Focus on challenge (skill)	wargaming	adventure
Focus on luck	??gambling (rollplaying)??	??gambling (rollplaying)??

Anyhow all of them I like.

[Quertus]

Role-playing is when you focus on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
War Gaming is when you focus on the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you focus on the player, the problem solving skills they have, how they interpret the world.
Story Telling Game is when you focus on trying to optimize the resulting story?

Role Playing looks fine
I'd call ''war gaming'' Roll Playing, though it looks fine.
A story telling game does have a focus on the story, so fine here.

But the Adventure game does seem odd to focus on the player. Maybe this should be more like ''action game"?

Adventure, and Mundane might need to be separate categories. Adventure for fiction and Mundane for reality gaming.

''Adventure'' need to be broken up between ''action and mundane'' AND ''Roll and Role playing''. Adventure is not just roll playing the mechanics.

"Adventure gaming" - aside from being in the title of the thread - is the current name for "challenging the player" / using player skills / etc.

Hmmm... how about...

War Gaming is when you challenge the playing piece, its statistics, what it can do.
Adventure Game is when you challenge the player, their problem solving skills and ability to interpret the world / puzzles / etc.
Role-playing is when you make decisions based on the character, their personality, how they react, what they would do.
Story Telling Game is when you make decisions based on trying to optimize the final story?

[icefractal]

Resolving things primarily based on game mechanics vs resolving them based on the GMs judgement of the player's described actions (aka "rollplaying vs roleplaying") is a case where there are benefits to both, and doesn't just map to "combat vs story".

Notably, a lot of narrative games, like Fate, are fairly strongly on the mechanics based side. Of course you're encouraged to describe things in a way that fits the fiction, not just say "Roll succeeded, it happened, done.", but ultimately the roll is considered a fact that the fiction should conform to.

Benefits to mechanics-based:
* Potentially a more accurate simulation of the IC world, since it's based on character skill rather than player skill.
* Can be resolved very quickly, for things the group doesn't care much about.
* Impartial, allowing a competitive-type game if desired, and avoiding subconscious bias toward a desired outcome.
* Requires less perception-synchronizing between the GM and players.

Benefits to judgement-based:
* Increases immersion (for many people)
* Potentially more detailed and handles corner cases better than a finite rulebook can.
* Solving things with player skill can be a fun and engaging activity.
* Requires less rules familiarity.

It's rare for a group to use 100% one or the other though; it's a spectrum.