RPG Nerd Slack - On how the Storygame RPG versus Sandbox RPG war really is political bullshit and bad for RPG gaming

Nerd Slacker is back, and I'm here to annoy extremeists in the various camps of RPG fandom.

When most people think of RPG's, they usually think of Dungeons and Dragons and it's various iterations. However, within the RPG scene there are a few camps and schools of thought.  A relatively new development over the past few years has been the the Storygame movement, which has generally emphasized player control of narrative and the de-emphasization of a game master and the acknowledgement of narrative as being the essential element to role playing games.  On the other end of the spectrum is what are called traditional games, which emphasize the creative of a simulationist narrative and a high degree of suspension of disbelief, with game mechanics supporting this simulation by emulation approximations of physical processes within the setting, and an organic, free form approach to the development of narrative. I define these as Sandbox RPGs, there's usually a game master who has distinct control over the narrative, with the only player options to have input is to abide by the narrative assumptions of the simulated play space. As many older games use a variety of approaches, using the term Traditional RPG is not entirely accurate, as some of them, such as Pacesetter's Sandman, which by today's standards would be defined as a Story Game RPG) were absolutely not simulation-based sandbox style RPGs.

The one-creator control approach of Sandbox RPGs has been championed by many members within the OSR, or Old School Revival movement. While many within the OSR have staked themselves out as 'trad gamers', not all have, as the definitions of the OSR are loose and in flux.  Dungeon World is clearly a story game, for example, but has been declared by many within the overall gaming community as being an Old School Revival game (i'm not sure I entirely buy that myself, but Dungeon World certainly makes use of the OSR aesthetic.)

Now, some of you who are partisans of either stance - that Storygame RPGs rock and that Sandbox RPG games are for troglodytes who rule their campaigns with players having no agency except as decided by the arbitrary whims of the GM who represents a simulated world that really is their own personal narrative, while storygamers are snotty pseudo-intellectual swine who are seeking to foist their political opinions upon honest, hard working gamers who simply want to have fun and are also trying to steal the definition of what an RPG is.

Well, guess what? I find both positions to be utterly full of shit.

The real debate between the story game and the OSR-based Trad Game movement is inherently based in real world politics, even though many within both movements aren't entirely aware of the political origins of their positions.  Allow me to explain - 

Story Game RPGs were influenced in their development by such things as critical theory, which is an inherently leftist political and philosophical position, as well as post modern, as identified by Christian Giffen in his essay at story-games.net. In the Story Game movement, Rules Matter, since the rules act as principles by which even game masters must abide and act as a democraticisng force, much as the rule of law acts in civil society.  Story Game RPGs are an emergent political movement in RPGs, since Story Game RPGs arise from the socialist thought of the Frankfut School, even if indirectly or without conscious intent to do so.

Sandbox RPGs political rise out of a more mainstream view of American social relations, with a central authority figure arbitrating and interpreting rules, and players deferring to his or her authority. The GM acts as the sensorium through which they perceive the game world.  Ideally, the GM acts as a neutral arbiter and is merely the conduit to the objective world simulation in which the players participate, who survive by the virtue of their wits against an environment that would go on whether they were present or not.  Player agency is both heightened and reduced in this scenario, as while player have the absolutely authority to control their characters they have no other ways to control the setting on a meta level.  The narrative in these games are supposed to be emergent, not planned.  This is what is known as sandbox play.  For my purposes, I will refer to this impulse as the Sandbox Play movement, which is by definition a rejection of the Storygame RPG movement and is an expression of neoclassical ideals in terms of politics.  GMs own their campaigns, and if players don't like it, they can leave.  GMs also own whatever they choose to represent, and some even go as far as to fully embrace random reaction and encounter tables to determine NPC behavior and frequency of appearance in the game setting.  In my limited experience, many sandbox gamers seem to identify with libertarian ideals and a full embrace of game theory and rational actor style economics.  Sandbox gamers also, in my purely anectdotal experience, generally self-identify politically rightward. Gaming forums such as the The RPG Site generally have an audience that skews white and male (although I have met Sandbox gamers who do identify with the US mainstream political left.) Sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world, who suffer not any interference in their narrative property rights.

So, being that each branch of the roleplaying game hobby derives ultimately from schools that are part of the spectrum of worldwide politics, I will break out how each side is harming and helping the hobby, and certain elements in each movement  are actually pushing agendas that have nothing to do with gaming and everything to do with social relations and political agendas.

First, the story game movement gets my stink eye - 

STORY GAMES ARE INHERENTLY IMMERSIONIST. There, I used caps so that the appropriate level of drama can be generated.  Use of mechanical structures to create scenes and outcomes within a narrative are devices that set the stage for immersion.  Some sandbox gamers claim that the story mechanics in story game RPGs destroy their immersion - to that, I counter that the Sandbox is exactly a form of narrative construct just as much as the staging and dice allocation mechanics from games like Fiasco and Cortex.  They are simply different forms of creating the narrative stage upon which immersion takes place.  For my purposes, immersion is the moment when the player and character action, intent and perceptive stance are united.  The claim that mechanics remove one from immersion is a false statement at best, unless one participates in totally free form, mechanicsless type of game (which is an actual thing, in the style of European Free Form Larps).  A simple roll to hit and most combat mechanics are simply systems that somewhat randomly determine the narrative outcomes of combat, and tense RPG combats that have an uncertain outcome while emulating the narrative effects of the genre they are simulating are immersive.The guy who says that narrative mechanics destroy immersion is as full of shit (although perhaps not intentionally so) as the guy who says that immersion is false and impossible.  Both of these positions express a desire for rhetorical conflict and tribalism that have nothing to do with playing and enjoying of RPGs.

And now, sandboxers - 

THE SANDBOX IS A NARRATIVE CONSTRUCT. All those wandering monster tables, NPC reaction charts and other stuff used to simulate an objective game world? Guess who choses when they will be used and rolls the dice? The GM, exercising his or her narrative control.  While the idea of an emergent, organic narrative is one of the awesome components championed by the sandbox game movement, it is a narrative.   I find it absolutely intellectually dishonest that a sandbox GM will allow a nonsensical result derived from a reaction of encounter table to get in the way of a string of fun the he and the players are having.  The GM saying "that's what the tables said, sorry" is like a player saying "but that's what my guy would do!", neither acknowledging that their setting and character respectively are constructs that they control and that they are the driving agency behind.

NEITHER SIDE OWNS THE DEFINITION OF ROLE PLAYING GAME - I think this goes without saying.  The hobby is large enough that multiple definitions of what an RPG is should be embraced.  The definitions of what an RPG is are still emergent, and all sides of the hobby are still contributing to this, especially as technology changes the forms of how people can participate and create content.  My definition of a roleplaying game is as follows -  Any game in which role play takes place, and which includes game style mechanics to resolve uncertain situations within the shared narrative, is a role playing game.  This definition is still in flux for me, but it's the best that I can produce right now.

CANON IS BULLSHIT.  Members of both sides are trying to determine the 'canon' definition what an RPG is.  They're both full of shit.  Certain games do not cause brain damage or make people into swine. While Paul Cornell doesn't discuss rpg gaming, his notes in regards to canon within fandoms smack absolutely true. 

THE OSR IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE SANDBOX GAMING MOVEMENT.  As someone who started with AD&D 1 and lived through those days as a gamer, I can say with a certain degree of authority that there was no actual formed philosophy concering gaming back then.  People just as often had pre-determined story archs back then when they ran AD&D (if it worked, it was Awesome, if it failed, it was railroading), so story in a game definitely was a thing.  Also, TSR Marvel Super Heroes, with it's Karma rules and comic book based framing structure, is absolutely a trad game that was crreated long before the Story Game and Sandbox movements arose.  Some have accused Tenra Bansho Zero of being a story game, but it's actually a fusion game which makes use of certain framing techniques reminiscent of modern story games.  But the game also uses a random reaction table (the emotion matrix) which clearly derives from random NPC reaction tables while Aiki, Kiai and Karma are objective things which exist in the setting. All one needs to do to play Tenra in an entirely sandbox manner is to discard the scene framing techniques.  Further, both MSHRPG and Tenra were written before the foundation of the Story Game movement (1986 and 2000, respectively.)  The OSR is a feeling, a vibe, and an aesthetic.  This is one of the reasons why Dungeon World is identified by many as an OSR game, even though the authors don't define it in terms of sandbox gaming.   A large degree of Dungeon World's fanbase identify it as a story game RPG, AFAICT.

BOTH STORY GAMES AND SANDBOX GAMES ARE AWESOME.  The Sandbox gaming movement, through the channel of the OSR, has come up with innovative ideas as to executing emergent style narrative gaming.  The passion and creativity in the development of adventure content and settings that flows from the Sandbox gaming movement are outstanding and to be cheered.

Over on the Storygame side, the passion and creativity I've seen in the story game scene have also been astounding, with new ideas and settings and fun flowing in a spigot.  I salute both RPG movements.

CREATORS DETERMINE DEFINITIONS. Hey, RPG ideology nerd? No one elected you to be gaming pope. I don't care if you are a disciple of RPGPundit or worship at the feet of Ron Edwards in the Forgeite army. Only creators get to define what their games are called, and accusing them of being deceptive or dishonest is the pot calling the kettle black. In a creative hobby such as this, definitions are fluid.  Do creators the courtesy of abiding their authority over their own work.  I'd never call a sandbox RPG a story game RPG, for example, because most authors within that movement don't like the term and I'd call it whatever they defined it as on the cover.  The same goes for Story Game creators. I support creator rights and ownership over their work, especially as in regards to definitions.

GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER GUYS? DON'T HATE, CREATE. Screeching at each other on blogs and gaming forums does jack and shit for the gaming hobby, and chases away new gamers.  Instead, create new stuff and show us why your point of view is good and makes for fun.  You see, that's the ultimate measure of success in this hobby - we're all here to have a good time. Prove em wrong by publishing and selling. Which brings me to my next point - 

IF IT'S NOT FUN, IT'S WORTHLESS.  I don't care about the purity of your ideological position or your first principles.  I do this thing because I have a good time. It doesn't matter how enjoyment is arrived at - let the most fun game be the one that is regarded as the most right.  Pissing matches blaming other people for your own lack of success, talking about conspiracies and dishonesty or other argle bargle nonsense is just blog and forum hot air crap. MAKE GAMES AND OTHER PRODUCTS. Don't *tell*, *SHOW* us why you're right.

Which brings me to my final point - 

YOU SHOULD BE SPENDING LESS TIME ARGUING ABOUT HOW OTHER PEOPLE GAME, AND MORE TIME GAMING. 'nuff said.

I welcome comments, as I make no claim to perfection and invite reasoned debate.  But if I smell argle bargle, bad language or other unpleasantness, then your post doesn't get approved..  If you're willing to be respectful and polite, we can have a great exchange, but acting like a jerk will get you screened.

EDIT - As detailed in the comments below, it appears that I am off base with at least some leftists that game using sandbox techniques. For this, I stand corrected. But the political and cultural zeitgiest from which both movements derive from I feel is still valid. Thank you for all the great comments so far, keep em coming.