http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6487309&postcount=40

QuoteHi Levi,

I don't know if I'll succeed, but I have been thinking about this subject a bit lately. Whether my angle on it will be helpful or not, I do not know. But here are some thoughts.

I see a broad distinction between what I consider the Dramatic approach to the story at hand, and the Novelistic approach. (Drama meaning, for this post, the style of storytelling found in a stage play.)

If you look at the works of Shakespeare you find -- dialogue. It's just people talking. No set decorations. No props to speak of (a few crowns, swords, a dagger, a magic potion or two.... that's about it). What props there are of great import to a character in the play (Prospero's books, for example) and serve as engines for the narrative as well.

Look at Moliere, the Greek Tragedies and othe plays written without the influence of the novel as a competing form of storytelling and you'll see the same thing -- characters basically at work on each other. The world matters little. The fact that some production companies gussie up the shows with elaborate sets doesn't change the fact that plays can work just fine (and even maybe better!) with just a few chairs and a black stage.

Now, look at a novel. The characters matter. But they exist in relation to a much larger world just as much to other characters. There is a sense of building up the substance of the environment tha thte characters live in. The text is not just about the interactions of the characters, but the objects they touch, social customs, and so on. Characters do not just have interactions with other specific characters, but are shaped by social engines that they will never know about (in Dickens, off the top of my head, for example).

(Quick clarification: I'm not saying Shakespeare's plays aren't about social forces. I'm saying: Look at the text. There you will find characters, bereft of props and scenery, in direct conflict to make things happen -- whether wooing, or debating, or sorting out a decision in their own head.)

Now, neither one of these is better or worse. They are different forms of narrative, each with unique abilities to reveal things about people, the world, and tell stories in different ways to produce a different kind of feel or experience.

In my view, earlier RPGs grew very much out of a tradition of novels and prose. I don't think it's possible to underestimate the influence of The Lord of the Rings on RPGs, for example, with all it's lush cultural, geographic and crafts-of-Middle-Earth detail. For many poeple, this love of this detail IS what RPGs are about.

A lot of newer games have been focusing on what I consider Dramatic storytelling. In particular, I'd say Ron Edwards, who has been very influential in setting up some new techniques, has drawn a great deal from the tools and techniques of Dramatists: direct conflict between characters; getting the story going out of the gate; a shorter, or at least swifter, shot toward the climax.

Plays are focused in the central concerns. Novels take their time, wandering around a bit more. Plays are about the people of the story interacting directly with other characters, resolving a scene, and moving on to the next. Novels build up details -- not only of the character, but of the world and it's details -- that allow a weight to be invested in objects or details of the world. (In a play, such details might be lost (you can't "flip back" to recall a detail while watching a play!) and might stop the Dramatic momentum if you stopped to lay out all the history/lessons/details....)

I've been watching with interest lately the growing wall between people who want the faster paced, conflict driven story of a lot of the newer games, and those who want the more relaxed, building up the details worlds of other RPGS.

In my view, this has little to do with Ron's Big Model and it's creative agendas (and this is the last time I'll mention them.) Nor is about "new" vs. "old". After all, theater was around before the novel. The fact that these focus on techniques is reversed as RPGs try out new storytelling techniques is simply a historical accident.

What I see is that there are two different traditions from other media people are drawing on to tell stories. Neither one is "right," nor is one more "right" for an RPG. Like any other form of entertainment, RPGs draw on many other media for inspiration and clues about how to engage and have fun. What's happening now, I believe, is that two sources of tradition are bumping into each other in RPGs. And they don't mix that well. There's a reason a play looks like a play upon the page, and a novel looks like a novel upon the page. They are two different forms of narrative, with two different focuses.

I'd even add that how we experience dramatic narrative and how we experience the novel match the two conditions you post above. When we see a play, the story is happening "out there." When we read a novel the story is happening "in here" (taps head).

So...

I'd say there's been a lot of experimentation of late with the tools of the dramatist, and not so much with the tools of the novelist. I think there's work to be done adding in techniques and rules to help people build up the kind of experience you're after in this thread.

That's what I'm offering to add to your understanding.

Christopher

PS A quick notes on movies: Movies look like they're big novels in terms of detail, but they're not. If you read a script, you'll find they are very light on detail. They're purpose is like that of a stage play -- to set characters in motion, in conflict of some kind, with as little verbiage and detail as possible. What props and sets are there are there to define characters and conflicts.

"Star Wars: A New Hope" has light sabers. Why? Cool, yes, but as Lord Liaden pointed out above -- it's a concrete object that Luke can use seek and reveal his desire to grow beyond his childhood life on Tatooine. The art department, the cinematographers and so on, comes in to "grow out" the details of character and conflict as stated lightly in the screenplay. There's always a background in the film, but it should exist to explicate and reveal the character and the conflicts (or ignored and lost in "the background.")

Example: check out the Council of Elrond scene from Tolkien's LotR, and then check out the deft adaptation Jackson and his screenwriters pulled off for the movie. They both "work" -- but in completely different ways, each meeting the needs and exploiting the purpose of each form.

Well, all right, I really just wanted to put in a note that it should be like 'Story Telling' vs. 'Improv Theatre' to prevent moral highground claiming by evil Ronnite Swine, only I can't because the Facists at RPG.net banned me in their quest for non confrontational mediocrety. Because people have been telling stories for a long time you know, and this is just like listening to someone read you a bedtime story, only you get a say in what happens! Obviously a more suitable format with ugly people sitting around a table pretending to be wizards than that nasty forge stuff.

But anyway, the conflict between improve theater style which is all about dialog and acting and story telling style where you can have more narration and digression does sound right to me.

It´s adventure gaming and thematic gaming, I´d say.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s adventure gaming and thematic gaming, I´d say.

I think more how one goes about it - when someone is reading you a story, you can't really do the sorta Intense Ken and his Ex Sharon Are Locked In A Lift And Sharon Reveals She Had A Miscarriage And Its, Like, Intense, Man (or I suppose you could, but he'd have to do both voices). But in a radio play you can't describe the city and its workings without one character saying 'As you know, Bob...'. Or at least not as easily.

So both could be, like, Deep Man - a character piece about a touching interaction between slaves in a pit as opposed to wondering through a conntryside meeting situations making thinly disguised points.

Anyway, I'm just thinking it could be an avenue for an offensive - 'Forge Games - LARP for those unable to run very far'.

Could you elaborate?
I think you are ironic, but I don`t know with whom.

There certainly is a reduction in focus going on in thematic games.
But stage-plays live and thrive not because of their surprising thematic developments, but through their language, at least in part. And RPGs do a lot of stuff, but never generate high quality language.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd RPGs do a lot of stuff, but never generate high quality language.

I'm not sure that matters so much as that it just can be vastly entertaining to have a pretend argument with somone. And forgie games are devices for maximising the number of occasions on which you end up in a mexican standoff shouting 'DON'T YOU POINT THAT GUN AT MY DAD!!!!!', and without all those other bits that get in the way.

QuoteAnd forgie games are devices for maximising the number of occasions on which you end up in a mexican standoff shouting 'DON'T YOU POINT THAT GUN AT MY DAD!!!!!', and without all those other bits that get in the way.

That´s why I´d call them thematic games.
What exactly follows from this, in your eyes?

Quote from: Erik BoielleI'm not sure that matters so much as that it just can be vastly entertaining to have a pretend argument with somone. And forgie games are devices for maximising the number of occasions on which you end up in a mexican standoff shouting 'DON'T YOU POINT THAT GUN AT MY DAD!!!!!', and without all those other bits that get in the way.

Actually, that we already knew.

The significant thing is that this divide opens new options when locked in mortal forum combat with the hated enemy - The Swine think they are dumping the extraneous stuff in order to get to the heart of the matter, while in fact they are dumping the myth-base which allows a storyteller of the oral tradition to improvise on a theme and the narration that allows a good speaker to expoud around his subject in order to illustrate his point in favour of schlock melodramatics on the level of 'Your Not My Mufa' 'Yes I am!!!!!' scene off of Eastenders.

Theres one in your eye Edwards!

After all, being a storyteller used to be a full time job. The lore would be passed from master to apprentice with the  process taking years. - modern equivalents like tour guides must learn extensive materials to do their job.

I just think its a stronger arguing position - no one wants to argue that they are the low brow vs. the elite.

Instead claim that they are just the reality television of roleplaying - of course people like watching Jade be stupid. But its not very... Clever is it.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s adventure gaming and thematic gaming, I´d say.

I think Christopher Kubasik is talking about a different split, since the novelistic approach can most certainly be thematic.  For example, the World of Darkness games and many of their ilk are certainly novelistic.  

Personally, I think Kubasik's analogy is broken.  I find that the typical Forge games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Polaris are very little like stage drama, because they have a strong emphasis on narrated action rather than in-character dialogue.  Rather than just role-play out an argument as dialogue, you have to roll your dice and do your Raises or But-Only-If's or whatnot.  

It's larps and Amber play which is more drama-like.  And the Forge is frequently anti-immersive and against this sort of play.  

I don't think the simple binary split works.  Larps are different than D&D, which are different than Forge games which are different than Amber.

QuoteI think Christopher Kubasik is talking about a different split, since the novelistic approach can most certainly be thematic.

I can see where you are going, and it makes sense. But the line drawn was along the thematic / adventure fault.
As you go on, a subdivision along the stage/novel fault would have to be drawn differently than done above.

You put it better than me: stageplays are about dialogue, not about themes. In D&D you do battles and fights which are loaded up with thematic dimensions, but fighting is the thing you actually do.
In stageplays,  the characters  talk to each  other,  the dialogue is loaded  up  with themes.  Talking  is what is actually  done.
In Thematic RPs, themes "fight" against each other, with special "combat" mechanics, dialogue is just a byproduct.

Thanks for the insight.
Everything in reality is multi-dimensional, and thusly can be subdivided along  multiple lines. It´s just another one and must come to different categories. Nice.

The flaw I find with most of these theories is most people are most things at one time or another at least to some degree. Yet the theories always seem to talk as if you are permanently in one camp or another. You are GN or S, you are playwright or novelist is style, where as nearly everyone I've met is a mix of both or even if they are full on novelist style one day, later in their life (month) they might be playwright or visa versa.

Yes, people are way more inconsequential than discourse allows!
Like people who want a great social system and low taxes at the same time. Although people really want that, it will not happen.
Therefore decisions have to be made; at the very least compromises have to be made. It definitely helps if you know what you are giving up for something else. Once the relationships of competing interests are known, informed choices can be made.

And this is way more valuable than eternal typecasting. That´s why I like the idea of "axis of exchange": You trade one type of enjoyment for another one. The more you know about it, the better you can match your playstyle to your current needs. Traditionally, that is done by experience through the choice of the game one runs.

I can't take anyone who mistakes "their" for "they're" seriously.

I don´t get what you are trying to say. Care to elaborate?

Thanks for posting that email -- it's very interesting.

I was also thinking about how RPGs could be described as being on a spectrum from War Games (or board games) on one end, which is where they started with Chainmail.  On the other end you have Theatre Sports, like the show "Who's Line is it Anyway?".  Incidentally, one of the "rules" of Theatre Sports is "Never say no / Block another player".

I agree that games can not be fully defined as being "G", "N", "S", "RP", "WG", etc.  but it is useful to think about the ways different RPGs can focus on different aspects and have different goals.

There isn't a "one true way" to design, play, or think about RPGs.