Quote from: flyingmiceUmm, then your personal definitions don't mesh up to commonly held definitions, which is a bear for mutual understanding.

Actually they do.  

In literature, a plot is a static thing:  "A family, trapped in a  house surrounded by zombies, must overcome their own conflicts to save themselves."  

A storyline is the linear progression from the beginning to the end: "A family wakes up to find the world has been taken over by zombies.  They fight amongst themselves until they finally get it together to defend themselves but are ultimately swallowed up by the undead holocaust."

Quote from: walkerpActually they do.  

In literature, a plot is a static thing:  "A family, trapped in a  house surrounded by zombies, must overcome their own conflicts to save themselves."  

A storyline is the linear progression from the beginning to the end: "A family wakes up to find the world has been taken over by zombies.  They fight amongst themselves until they finally get it together to defend themselves but are ultimately swallowed up by the undead holocaust."

Ummm, we - estar and I, that is - were talking about Plot and Metaplot, Walker, not Plot and Story.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceUmmm, we - estar and I, that is - were talking about Plot and Metaplot, Walker, not Plot and Story.

I was following that, but you quoted his entire post and did not specify what part of it you did not consider to be a common understanding of the term plot.  I thought you were referring to his first sentence, where he made the distinction between story and plot, not where he lumped plot and metaplot (your distinction of which I get and agree with).

Actually let me elaborate.  I think there is plot, metaplot and Metaplot.  The metaplot estar is referring to is the overarching storyline that affects the campaign at a higher level and will continue on with or without player involvement.  Players generally do have the ability to influence this form of metaplot.  This is generally created by the GM.  The Metaplot you are referring to, fm, is the sanctioned official overarching plot produced by a game company.  It is problematic because generally players have no way to influence it.

Quote from: walkerpI was following that, but you quoted his entire post and did not specify what part of it you did not consider to be a common understanding of the term plot.  I thought you were referring to his first sentence, where he made the distinction between story and plot, not where he lumped plot and metaplot (your distinction of which I get and agree with).

Ah! OK! I'll try to be more careful with my quoting in the future.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWord, Geezer!

-clash

I'm with the two geezers.

Quote from: walkerpActually let me elaborate.  I think there is plot, metaplot and Metaplot.  The metaplot estar is referring to is the overarching storyline that affects the campaign at a higher level and will continue on with or without player involvement.  Players generally do have the ability to influence this form of metaplot.  This is generally created by the GM.  The Metaplot you are referring to, fm, is the sanctioned official overarching plot produced by a game company.  It is problematic because generally players have no way to influence it.

This is more directed at flyingmice. But what difference there is for GM created plot and game company created plot from the Player point of view. To me there is none. It is all metaplot and outside of the player's normal ability to influence or direct. However there is a lot of different from the GM point of view. A GM using a company created metaplot to develop plot can get screwed if the game company future installments doesn't work with the GM has developed. For example in the 80s A traveller GM who has advanced his game to 1120 all of sudden finds most of the system support being directed into an Imperium wide civil war started in 1116.

Rob Conley

P.S. A infinitely detailed frozen in time setting has its own issues as well. Search the Harnforum (http://www.harnforum.com) for some interesting commentary on the issue.

Aside from the usual "I am in 1000 TR so a 720 TR product won't help anymore" the other comments are about wanting to use some of the conflicts in Harn that they didn't use in the first run of their campaign. One goes that Harn has so many plot hooks that if they were all used at once the island would blow up and leave a hole in the planet. The solution most GMs seem to take is just reset back to 720 TR and run the new campaign.

Quote from: VBWyrdeAya.  But let me ask you something Geezer... did those Adventures make for good stories in their own right?   Not because they were designed to, but because you played them out in interesting ways?

- Mark

A ... few.

A lot were "Damn, that was fun", but hard to explain.  And often the "story" that came up afterwards was "We fought the bad guy and he fought back really hard and we won."

As I said, I'm having a damn hard time putting this in words.  But I KNOW it's there.

Quote from: Old GeezerAs I said, I'm having a damn hard time putting this in words.  But I KNOW it's there.

Which is really the best damn explanation I've seen so far.  Sterilizing something and viewing it clinically only gives a small amount of credence to an individuals experience, which is relative and easily discounted.  Which is sad because so much of learning comes from experience right or wrong.

Quote from: estarThis is more directed at flyingmice. But what difference there is for GM created plot and game company created plot from the Player point of view. To me there is none. It is all metaplot and outside of the player's normal ability to influence or direct.

That is only true if the GM does not adapt his "plot" to the player's deeds, which is railroading.

GM: "... And standing next to the Prince is Lord Farqhuahar."
Players: "Hey, wait a minute! We killed him last session!"
GM: "Well, I couldn't let that happen. He is important to my plot! He obviously survived."

That's not a GM, that's a scriptwriter.

-clash

Okay, I've had some sleep and a chance to think.

In 36 years of RPGing, I've accumulated a lot of humorous anecdotes.  I've had some moments where, afterwards, we said "That was a cool scene", like it was a scene in a movie.*  And I've come up with a few tall tales, like when Robilar decided he wanted to visit Barsoom and his sage** was convinced a large catapult was the answer.

But I've never had anything result that I would call a "story".  Other than that implied by the genre -- Star Wars, "We infiltrated and destroyed a Dark Jedi academy".  D&D, "We killed some things and took their stuff".  Et cetera.

But nothing we looked at afterwards and said "That was a great story."




*I cannot rigidly define "scene" but I know one when I see one.  Let's not drift into pointless digressions over dramaturgical theory.

** who was named "Herb".

Quote from: Old GeezerI don't play RPGs to "tell stories", I play RPGs to "have adventures".  I'm damned if I can put the difference into words, but on an intuitive level it's real for me.

A story is what someone sees looking in from the outside.  And adventure is what one experiences from the inside.

Quote from: John MorrowA story is what someone sees looking in from the outside.  And adventure is what one experiences from the inside.

I can work with that.

I'd say looking on the outside, there's always story.  It might not be the most coherently-structured or narratively smooth, but shit happens, characters do stuff, stuff happens to them.

I think the big definition of story that is pushed on us by screenwriters and college creative writing is the character arc and that probably tends to happen less in gaming.  Characters gain in power, for sure.  But there are a lot of stagnant characters out there whose main point of definition is their method of fighting or their class. And they tend not to change. But there's still a story going on that they are part of.

And in many campaigns, I'm sure the characters do change and develop.

Quote from: walkerpI'd say looking on the outside, there's always story.  It might not be the most coherently-structured or narratively smooth, but shit happens, characters do stuff, stuff happens to them.

Well, that's why I think that talking about "story" without talking about story quality is a bit silly.  

Quote from: walkerpI think the big definition of story that is pushed on us by screenwriters and college creative writing is the character arc and that probably tends to happen less in gaming.  Characters gain in power, for sure.  But there are a lot of stagnant characters out there whose main point of definition is their method of fighting or their class. And they tend not to change. But there's still a story going on that they are part of.

The question is whether it's a good story or not.  Would you pay to buy a transcript of someone else's role-playing game written up as a story without any editing?  In most cases, I doubt it.  There is a reason why so many people roll their eyes when someone says that they want to tell them about their character or campaign.  Often, it's like listening to someone talk about their vacation and how they saw this and that, maybe with some pictures.

By the way, Japanese RPG fans do sell what they call "replays", which are write-ups of people's games either in text or as an amateur manga.  Lodoss Wars started out as a replay of sorts.

Quote from: John MorrowThe question is whether it's a good story or not.  Would you pay to buy a transcript of someone else's role-playing game written up as a story without any editing?  

No.  I probably wouldn't want to read a write-up of any role-playing session for the story.  I already have books and movies.

But a lame story to read could still be super fun to play in.

Quote from: walkerpI can work with that.

I'd say looking on the outside, there's always story.  It might not be the most coherently-structured or narratively smooth, but shit happens, characters do stuff, stuff happens to them.

I think the big definition of story that is pushed on us by screenwriters and college creative writing is the character arc and that probably tends to happen less in gaming.  Characters gain in power, for sure.  But there are a lot of stagnant characters out there whose main point of definition is their method of fighting or their class. And they tend not to change. But there's still a story going on that they are part of.

And in many campaigns, I'm sure the characters do change and develop.

Agreed, Walker - and a nice way of putting it, John!

-clash