I think I do a fair job of pitch what SGs are about. Generally I start with, “They’re more about ‘our story’ than ‘my character’.” Sometimes I’ll talk about distributed authority or the difference between task resolution and conflict resolution. I try to stick to things that directly affect play and steer away from ‘rules light’ and most of GNS; but lately I’ve been talking about Story Now and emphasizing that there is no pre-made scenario.

Sometimes I get people interested. Sometimes people decide that Story Games aren’t for them. I really wish I could play a Story Game with everyone that asked as playing them is a whole lot more informative than talking about them.

EDIT: I think I found one of them
http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6846

Oh, my, I see we’re entering a world of pain here, so let’s not go there. I just need a yummy marketing term for the activity, to be able to introduce non-gamers to story jamming – actually, to story now as an activity. If “story games” is taboo for that, them Iet’s find another

I don’t want to dig through the SG forum for other examples, but about a year ago I was planning to run my first Story Games Lounge at a convention and I went there looking for advice on how to sell the idea of Story Games to people. I got a lot of push back, much from people there who have published games, that it was basically wrong to talk about Story Games as a whole. That was a rather bizarre and unexpected response as I’m basically promoting their games or similar games and trying to get more people interested. I guess they don’t want that?

I don’t see why different things can’t have different terms. Yes, lots of people play D&D and Dogs and BE. But what they are doing in those games is fundamentally different; even more so if they’re playing Polaris or Dirty Secrets. It seems like no matter how many times you say, “They aren’t better games, just different game,” people that want to still hear hate when they hear “Story Games”.

That said, I’m sure there’s lots to debate within the gaming community – I’m trying not to go there, but instead looking at: how can I get my friends and colleagues interested in this shared experience we at the moment call story games.

I really think game designers need to stop hurting the communities that are trying to build around their games. It’s a weird pattern I’ve noticed over the last several years. Their desire to “avoid divisiveness” is greater than their desire to support people that are actively running their games and teaching other people how to play them at conventions. I don’t know if that’s what Luke Crane was on about in the interview because I haven’t listened to it yet, but I’ve seen it from other designers and it baffles me.

I was merely using Luke’s points to continue my own thinking about how to bring story game to people outside the gaming community, especially those people who are already consuming fiction, ie. book readers, TV addicts and film goers.

The beginning: The Case. This is where we prove that there is at all a problem to be solved or an opportunity seized by identifying the problem.

The middle: The Wire. This is where we try to identify the system the problem operates under and/or catch people who make the problems making the problem happen.

The end: The Score. Were we settle the matter of the case, which does not necessarily mean solving the case or resolving the underlying problem to begin with.

I am not sure if the show continues this way in the third, fourth, and fifth seasons.

Is a twist(GM) and a turn(PC) two separate pieces of currency for the phases? Is it procession of a dozen twists before a dozen turns?

I wanted to do a Neon Genesis Evangelion hack for mouse guard and The infection mechanics applied, but preferred MG b/c I found creating settings worth of lifepaths too daunting. What I am getting at is that you are a genius.