# I like Ben Robbins, But He's Wrong About Story Games tags: #thoughts ![[Microscope (cover).jpg|400]] Let's just get this out of the way up front: I really am a fan of Ben Robbins' work. **[[Microscope]]** is one of my favorite games of all time. **[[Kingdom]]** is a game I have publicly streamed before streaming tabletop RPGs was cool. **[[In This World]]**… okay, they can't all be absolute bangers, but it's still pretty good. He has a blog post up today called *["Defining Games in a Useful Way."](https://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/4347/defining-games-but-in-a-useful-way/)* It is, like pretty much everything he produces, well-considered and attempts to put his finger directly on the pulse of the ideas he's reaching for. In this case, the definitions which make up how we communicate about what are games, what are role-playing games, what are story games, and what are GMless games. He is tackling issues that we've been wrestling with not only in the story games space, but in the overall RPG space since day two after the first RPG was committed to paper. The arguments have been mighty and led to vast flame wars that raged across Usenet without pity or remorse. That's not going to stop because I'm about to disagree respectfully,^[Okay, granted, possibly slightly *less* than respectfully.] but I'm going to disagree. ## What is a Role-Playing Game? I've written in the past about the Sid Meier definition of a game being a series of interesting choices. I'm down for that. I'm totally okay with that. Lots of things are a series of interesting choices, including your life, but games in general are a specific intentional series of interesting choices made purely *because* they are interesting. We can quibble about the greater context of *why* they would be interesting or *how* they can be implemented as choices, but I'm willing to accept that this is a nice solid definition of a game. Where we start to go astray is with the definition of a role-playing game as *"a game that requires us to make fiction and agree about it or else the game breaks down."* I think Vincent Baker was entirely wrong when he said that,^[And said so at the time. If you're unaware of the violent cacophany that was *[The Forge](http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php)* during the painful birth of story games as a movement, you've really missed out. It was blood sport. I miss it.] and missed an entire massive component of why role-playing games are a series of interesting questions. To wit, that the whole thing hinges on us disagreeing about *what the fiction should be* and using a set of rules in order to determine whose idea of what the fiction is is reified and accepted by everyone else without an essential disagreement. Without essential disagreement about the fiction, there is no game because there are no interesting choices. There are no stakes. There are literally no conflicts. If I want this thing to be true and you want this thing to be true simultaneously, obviously we don't have a game, we have an agreement. The game itself can only occur when we have ideas which *cannot be simultaneously true* or which require negotiation in figuring out *how* they can be simultaneously true. (**[[Polaris - Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North|Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North]]** specifically is an RPG which hinges on negotiation as the mechanic with shifting levels of stakes on both sides until either both sides agree or the contention itself is disposed of.^[And it's even more hillarious in reference that it's written by another Ben.]) Ben not surprisingly focuses on the agreement as the crux of the definition, whereas I focus on the fact that there is no agreement until we make agreement, until we have conflict as the crux around which the idea of role-playing games center. ## What is a Story Game? And this brings us to the question of what a story game is, which is where the road truly bifurcates and takes a different path. Ben recalls his previous statement about what a story game is: > [!quote] Defining Games, But In A Useful Way > > A story game is a role-playing game where the players have direct input into the fiction. He then goes on to talk about what I often refer to as *"traditionally architected role-playing games,"* which involve a player desires to and filtered through character abilities, which then filter through rules, which then enter the fiction, as opposed to a story game where player desires filter through the rules and then are manifest in the fiction. I think that's wrong in a *vast* number of points. Let's deal with the latter points first. Deliberately differentiating character abilities and rules is *disingenuous*. Character abilities are part of the rules, and to suggest that story games cut out the character abilities as a mechanism by which player desires are manifest into the fiction is to ignore his own work. - **Kingdom** is very patently and definitionally a story game, and characters (despite the open nature of them) very much have character abilities. It is a single ability called Role, and it is either *Power*, *Touchstone*, or *Perspective*. - **Microscope** characters within the context of a scene have character abilities which derive from whoever is making the scene itself in terms of creation order, but they are not inherently unlimited, despite the fact that their ability is defined by negotiated scope. In this case, Ben has made a classic mistake of confusing the reification of player intent into a single character as the critical component of the *"adventure game"* (as opposed to the *"story game"*) that willfully ignores the fact that most story games very much lean on the idea of player desire *being specifically channeled* through a singular character at a given time through the bulk of the genre. As other people I spend too much time around would put it, *"That's shenanigans."* I'd be more likely to say it's a little bit bullshit. It's nonsensical differentiation purely for the sake of differentiation and not for actual observable facts about function. It would be reasonable to say that the adventure game *tends* to focus very specifically on player agency through the actions of a singular character and that singular character bringing the levers and buttons that they push in order to affect the fiction, thus has quite a lot of rules to effect that engagement. It would be reasonable to say that the story game *tends* to focus the player desire to engage with the fiction of the world through rules which first and foremost describe the character with descriptors which are not immediately physical or grounded. However, it's *unreasonable* to say that they *don't* have character abilities which limit the effectiveness of the fiction that can be affected while using that character.^[And all this is further confused by games like **[[Capes]]** in which character-ownership is non-extant but *most* of the rules are about what you can do through the character.] Ben has deliberately or accidentally defined story games out of being role-playing games by defining the roles out of them. If a method of reasoning leads you to an obviously untrue state, then your method is not useful. Which leads me to an interesting and bold statement, which is probably going to get my gamer card pulled and any work I've ever done in the hobby scrutinized for heresy: > If your game doesn't involve *players adopting roles*, it's not a *role-playing game*. > > It certainly may be a really *fun* game. It may be a game about stories, perhaps specifically, but it's not an RPG. It's not a role-playing game. Now we can rectify some of the complex implications of that statement by making another heretical statement: > Story games are not a strict subset of role-playing games. They represent a different classification, which may overlap. By this guidance, **[[In This World]]** is definitely *not* a role-playing game. It's very much a *story game* because it is a game in which the players manipulate the rules in order to affect the fiction, which gives rise to conflict at various levels with other players and thus interesting decisions. But being entirely absent of roles, beyond turn-taking by the players, it's not a role-playing game. **[[Microscope]]** has a little bit more of the space which it covers overlapping with RPGs because scenes in specific involve characters with roles within the scene. **[[Kingdom]]** is very much both a story game and a role-playing game because the mechanics entirely hinge around the role of each character and player within the context of play. Ironically, Ben is hamstrung by his own perception of hierarchy in a setup which is better described as a Venn diagram. ## What is a GMless Game? This leads to a bit more dissent on the issue of what is a GMless game. Now, a sensible person would say that a GMless game is a game that doesn't have a GM and leave it at that, which would be perfectly reasonable. But if we're going to go on and define the idea of the GMless game as associated with some mechanisms of play, let's not go with Ben's definition. > [!quote] Defining Games, But In A Useful Way > > A GMless game is a role-playing game where no individual has overriding or disproportionate control over the fiction. We are all equal. Again, I'm going to call shenanigans and an extra dollop of bullshit. That's limited hierarchical thinking. Not only that, as a *definition* it's poor because it attempts to bring judgment into what should simply be observation. A more objective definition is called for. I would suggest: > A GMless game is a story game or adventure game wherein narrative power is distributed across the players at the table. It need not be equally distributed, but there cannot be a central authority for all the fiction all the time. Firstly, this is a better definition because it is an objective definition. It doesn't cast aspersions or make judgements about a style of play that tens of thousands of people really enjoy. I may not like it, but they do. Fair enough. There's nothing overriding or disproportionate involved in choosing that style of play. Secondly, I also am perfectly happy with games which distribute specific authority over parts of the world to different players being thought of as *story games*.^[See **[[On Mighty Thews]]** for an example of that sort of thing, amusingly in a game which has a GM.] If in the process of play you as a player become the centralized authority of what your home world is like and everyone else has the same ability to accept or veto statements about their home worlds, then my definition is cool with that. That is GMless as long as no single player has sole authority over the shared fiction. Ben argues that role-playing games don't have to have actual role-playing in them with a straight face by way of support of that via Socratic means, he asks the question. > [!quote] Defining Games, But In A Useful Way > > If role-playing games are all about playing a character, what have GMs been doing all this time? As appropriate to the increasingly acidic tone throughout my response, I'm going to say *that's a stupid question.* The GM role is *itself* a role playing *the character of the world*^[Just as in **Star Trek** the Enterprise is an inanimate object and simultaneously a meaningful character within the context of the narrative.] and each individual, more fictionally limited aspect within it. The worlds, ten-foot corridors, and gelatinous cubes are all aspects of that more singular yet more fictionally expansive character. That's immediately obvious. What the GM does is very specifically playing a role both within the context of what they do at the table and what they do within the fiction. The only time this might break down a bit is when the GM is acting *solely and specifically as a mechanical referee* and doesn't actually affect the fiction by their actions, at which point I would begin to suggest that we have a different kind of game elementally that needs a different kind of descriptor.^[There are wargames which trend over this way - but not the classic **[[Kriegsspiel]]**, amusingly.] Now we're going to touch on another not quite as disingenuous question, but still one that is not going to apply to Mensa anytime soon: > [!quote] Defining Games, But In A Useful Way > > Imagine a game where you did roleplay a character but there was no need for the participants to make and agree on fiction. What would that look like? As 9/10 of the people who are likely to read my article have already surmised, *that's a tabletop wargame*. That's any time you break out **[[Warhammer 40k]]** and start pushing lead^[Ah, for the days minis *were* actually made of lead.], everything has a very clear role, and even the role of the player within the context of the game is pretty set. The essential conflict could be described as using the rules to find out what the shared fiction of the experience will end up being, ie. whether one side or the other wins this battle and resources in a longer campaign. I would be willing to argue that *tabletop wargames are actually an active subset and perhaps the most popular form of role playing game,* but I've never shied away from being heretical. I can't believe that Ben Robbins has never played a tabletop wargame, but I suppose it's possible. ## Where's the Edge of the Tent? Which brings us to the final bone of contention, and I think this might actually be the largest one in light of what I just said. Ben makes the argument that the big tent of role-playing games hinges on the question of *"shared fiction,"* but that tent has a very sharp edge. He makes the assertion that *if we don't need to agree on fiction it's not a role playing game*, and explicitly calls out tabletop miniature skirmish games as *not* being role playing games. That's dumb. I'm sorry, that's just electric insipidity and has to be called out. He's willing to discard the idea that *you have to play a role* in order for it to be a role playing game, but because he doesn't believe that the conflicts that occur during a wargame affect the fiction of the shared experience, so it's not a role playing game. At that point, you've tortured the definition so much that it's ready to be in the next **[Saw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(franchise))** movie, and it is effectively meaningless. You have tortured the meaning out of the definition. Congratulations. But that is the way of the hierarchical thinker, I suppose. ## Summus So let me recap how I would define these things just so we are all on the same page. Also, it'll make it a lot easier for you to argue with me later. - A **game** is a series of interesting choices. - A **role-playing game** is a game in which the player takes on a role within the shared fictional world, and the game is about resolving how the fiction is reified when different players have different visions of how the fiction should be or should proceed. - A **story game** is a game in which the primary mechanisms of engagement for the players are oriented toward manipulating the fiction from an authorial perspective, as opposed to the adventure game in which the primary mechanisms of engagement for the players are oriented toward manipulating the fiction from an experiential/receptive perspective. - A **GMless game** is one in which narrative authority is distributed, perhaps unequally, across all the players. But there is no centralized and final authority. - All **role-playing games** are **games**, but not all **story games** are **role-playing games**, nor are all **GMless games** **role-playing games**.^[I could make the further contention that **wargames** are **role-playing games** down to the level of Chess, in which you switch rapidly between character roles as a fictive agent to create the narrative of a violent territory domination war and it's ultimate conclusion, but that'd definitely get my Story Gamer Card pulled *tout suite*.] Eschew hierarchy. Embrace the Venn. ## Exunt Welcome to why *the Forge* was one of the most contentious places on the planet at just the right time to lay the seeds for what has become some of the most incredible game design inheritance on the planet. It's not that these discussions have not been fought out before. It's not even that they hadn't been fought out before *the Forge*. The cynic might point out that a lot of this was tired over a decade ago and it hasn't gotten any better with age. It's just become forgotten. While I like Ben's work and I find him very personable, he does have the problem of Seattleite provincialism when it comes to his perception of the rest of the tabletop role-playing game world. It's something that went back all the way to the beginning of the Story Games community,^[Not coincidentally, responsible for why I ducked out of the SG field for the most part for more than a decade for wargaming. Imagine if they knew I had the odd conservative leanings! I'd be run out of the hobby on a fucking rail!] quite frankly, a sort of class contempt by the geeks who got beat up in high school and have ever since been looking for a way to differentiate themselves from the lowbrow men of action with functioning fists. Hey, I get it, I've been a geek my whole life, I'm just not pretentious about it. I'm going to blame that on living in the suburban South and not being locked up in a city where it's easy to get bound up in believing that there's a hierarchy and you're on top of it. Anyway, go out and play games, whatever games you've got. Have fun, and then tell everybody else about what you're doing and what kind of fun you're having. Don't worry about definitions unless you need to talk about what kind of fun you're having in a way that they can consistently understand. If you can do that, you're ahead of the game.