So I was lurking around Vincent Baker's "I would knife fight a man" a few days ago and read a discussion there about whether it was possible to write an RPG that was both "Good story" and "Good Game".  Then I didn't think about it.  Then, about fifteen minutes ago I thought about it quite hard and something popped out of my ear.  Here it is.

Notes:
For purpose of this game "Good Story" is defined like this: Characters with motivation to change and grow, who might not.  The type of story it is can only be seen afterwards.
"Good Game" is defined like this: If you roll bad, or make poor choices, you lose the ability to affect the story.  Winning=playing, Losing=Watching others play

___________________________

Trailer Park
A game about finding or losing your way.
For at least three players

Characters:
They have four traits (always four!)
Park: How you feel about the trailer park.
Self: How you feel about yourself
Others #1: How you feel about one of the other Parkees
Others #2: How you feel about another one of the Parkees

Traits = 11 -  minimum of 1, maximum of 5
Each trait has its own "Lost" value, each startig at zero

Play is by round, each player getting a turn
On your turn, describe a social setting involving at least one other Trailer Park Denizen, where you have set up/ are being set up by another Parkee to see your view on matters. 
    Examples could be beer by a campfire, trying to impress the hot mama down the lane, or a public meeting where property matters are being discussed
Afterwards, roll a number of dice equal to two of your traits + their "Lost" values.  Look for 1s, remove them.  Count the remaining successes. Count 6s twice.
Do the same for the other Parkee there.  Compare successes.

If you won, describe how the situation changes to your benefit.
If you lose, add 1 to the "Lost" value of either of the traits you rolled.
Each time you add "Lost" you lose a number of turns = to the new value of that "Lost"
    Example: Tony loses a Park/ Self roll at a public meeting about trash pickup.  He adds 1 to his Self Lost, bringing it to 4.  Tony wallows in self pity for 4 turns, watching life go by.

If Lost > Trait, you've given up on that, and can never use it again.

Play ends when only one character has any fight left on any given trait. For this purpose consider the two "others" as one trait.
________________________

Whew, fifteen minutes to write - 1/2 hour to post. 

Now, Honestly, there are big (real big) holes in the game, but the real question is, I suppose, does it lay the foundation for a game that works well at producing "Story" and "Game" ?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Going by your definitions, yes, it would seem your game produces both "Good Story", and "Good Game".

However, semantics.

I could define "Good Story" as one in which the characters experience an equal amount of ups and downs, and a "Good Game" as one in which the players succeed 50% of the time. Then, I could write a game based on a toss of a coin. 30 seconds to write, one minute to post. But it wouldn't necessarily be a fun game, and the story wouldn't necessarily be fun.

Now, when it comes to my subjective reaction to your game, it doesn't seem like the story would interest me (there's no good buy-in for me, why should I even care about those guys?), and the game looks boring (I... roll; the I roll some more). Fun factor is always strongly subjective. But then, it has nothing to do with what you define as "good" for the sake of argument.

Are you interested in discussing the game and what it produces in a broader sense, or do you want to limit the discussion to how it fits the provided definitions?

Hi JCunkle, welcome to the forge!

Plenty of boardgames have 'sit out' situations in them. I'm not sure they're a good idea in boardgames or roleplay games. A person starts playing a game presumably because they're bored - if the game continues to make them bored, it proves to have been a poor choice amongst other amusements they could have chosen. I think the hold spell in D&D 3.0 changed because of that, from one save at the start to a save each round. Otherwise the player is just sitting out and thinking this wasn't a good choice of . And I've been in actual play where that save per round didn't satisfy a player there (and I empathise with his reasons).

I think its alright to boot someone out entirely - that frees them to go find some other amusement (and validates the game as being fun, because it engaged them through the entirety of their play session).

Hey, Thanks Callan!

Sorry to take so long to reply.  I've been very busy this week!

I'm afraid I have to agree with you about sitting out being a rather akward punishment for not rolling well, but I was thinking originally that if the story being generated was interesting enough, you wouldn't mind terribly that you were listening to it, rather than playing it.  The game-ish reward is that you can play, the story-ish reward is it's good story even if you've been doing poorly.

I really intended for this to be a kind of thought-experiment, but seeing as how no one's really interested (including me anymore) I think I can just let this one sink, if you don't care to reply.

Again, Thanks for such good feedback.

JC:

When I read the title of this thread, Capes immediately came to mind. It's a great example of hard core gaming driving a meaty, entertaining story. That would be a good place to start for inspiration and comparison. There's a free online demo ... Click Here.

JCunkle wrote:
"Good Game" is defined like this: If you roll bad, or make poor choices, you lose the ability to affect the story.  Winning=playing, Losing=Watching others play