Quote from: walkerpBut a lame story to read could still be super fun to play in.

Correct.  But that suggests that the fun is based on something other than the story value of what's going on, right?

Quote from: walkerpBut a lame story to read could still be super fun to play in.

Ding!  Winner!

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But that suggests that the fun is based on something other than the story value of what's going on, right?

Right.  That's the thing (whatever the hell it is) that makes roleplaying games awesome.  It's the doing (or pretending to be doing).  My life probably isn't a great story, but I'm totally into it and having fun a lot of the time.  Roleplaying games do something like that, I think, though at a few steps removed, obviously.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But that suggests that the fun is based on something other than the story value of what's going on, right?

Ding Ding Ding!  Daily Double!  Great Googily Moogily, the man's GOT it! :win:

Quote from: walkerpRight.  That's the thing (whatever the hell it is)

Well I would quantify some by saying that one element of "Whatever the hell it is" is about doing things, being able to make choices in a fantastic situations (regardless of genre) and seeing the results of those choice play out over time.

Enjoy
Rob Conley

Pulled from the Landmarks thread and thought maybe best continued here…

Quote from: Haffrung….

The more I read RPGnet and this site, the more relieved I am that my group was totally cut off from the mainstream RPG scene in the 90s. It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life, and either incapable of understanding how story can be generated without pre-conceived plots, or acting as though it's some kind of recent revelation that you can even play that way.

Maybe my group is unusual, but the basics of how and why we play are:
•   We're good friends. D&D is one of the ways we socialize with one another. Playing is a night with the boys away from the wife and kids. We drink beer.
•   Story is generated organically by player decisions. The DM does not set out a plot.
•   We're not really interested in crunch. The fewer rules to accomplish what we want to do, the better.
•   High level of DM authority is preferred. Players don't want to work anything other than their PCs. Their sense of immersion is spoiled if they take a hand in shaping the wider world. They also don't go in for backstory or thematic premise. They make up a PC, and explore a totally new world.
•   We all agree that the scenes we create in our imaginations while we play are way, way cooler than any movie or videogame. Those immersive experiences, where our interraction generates a vivid scene in each of our imaginations, is the number one reason we play. It's the dragon we chase.
So neither improv shared storytelling, nor MMORPGs came come anywhere close to satisfying our gaming wants. But maybe we're atypical.

Well add another group onto the list.  We share many of the traits above, except we are a more recent group of friends.  But every group I’ve been with since 1977 has shared these traits.

And computer games don’t provide all we want, in fact most of us play them as well (one of our group even once worked for a large CRPG game company, shocking!).  Any back-story evolves slowly and is spun off of ideas we get from interacting with the setting.

The part about “It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life…”  I find interesting as most examples of the “lameness” of traditional RPGs read as the most uncreative, story telling, railroad-style game I can imagine.

Quote from: XantherThe part about "It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life..."  I find interesting

But isn't this the "brain damage" whose mention we are all supposed to rail against.

Quote from: walkerpBut isn't this the "brain damage" whose mention we are all supposed to rail against.

Well, Ron clarified that the "Brain Damage" comment was an observation specifically about groups of White Wolf RPG players who thought they were creating "Story Now" games, when in fact they were not.  He noted that they seemed unable to grasp things like "theme" and "sub-text" in stories, instead focusing on the minutiae of setting and plot.

He said that if you weren't interested in "Story Now" then you could play WW (or any other) RPG without problem.

Personally, I disagree that RPGs can cause literal brain damage, and think there are other factors responsible for the problems with people's comprehension of story that Ron is commenting on.

I generally agree with Haffrung and Xanther though -- an over-emphasis on "Storytelling" has been very bad for RPGs and players.

I suppose gaming shouldn't be considered a "Storytelling medium", however, because that is apparently not it's strong point. The fun part of video games isn't it's storytelling, but something else. I'm playing Everquest right now, and there's virtually no story to that. Oddly enough, though, I don't get any pleasure from acquiring stronger weapons are seeing higher integers show up on the screen. Maybe lately I've been playing games that just aren't geared towards me. Video Games and RPGs no longer seem like an artistic medium to me, but rather something just to mess around with.

Heh.  I was actualyl just singing the praises of Half Life to someone, and it actualyl touches on one of the things you talk about in post #1.

HL1 has no cutscenes.  The entire game (except I think a few brief monets), you are in the shoes of Gordon Freeman, looking through his eyes.  HL2 is pretty much the same exact way.  Even during what would, in most games, be a "cut scene", like a dialogue bit or whatever, you're still in his shoes, and if you feel like, most times you can just walk off in the middle of the conversation.  

This seems like a trivial thing to some people, but it's HUGE, and it's part of the reason why the game is such a big fucking deal.  Because it never takes you away.  you're always in the moment, as opposed to being constantly reminded that you're really just being led by the nose, and it isn't even really "your guy" that you're playing, but some wannabe novelist's guy who he's kind enough to let you control occasionally.  

Games are supposed to be interactive.

Quote from: walkerpBut isn't this the "brain damage" whose mention we are all supposed to rail against.

I'm completely at a lost as to the "brain damage" reference.

Quote from: creabotsI suppose gaming shouldn't be considered a "Storytelling medium", however, because that is apparently not it's strong point. The fun part of video games isn't it's storytelling, but something else. I'm playing Everquest right now, and there's virtually no story to that. Oddly enough, though, I don't get any pleasure from acquiring stronger weapons are seeing higher integers show up on the screen. Maybe lately I've been playing games that just aren't geared towards me. Video Games and RPGs no longer seem like an artistic medium to me, but rather something just to mess around with.

I never considered games to be much about art.  You have fun, you make decisions, but rarely create.  I guess you could take them as a chance to act, that is as theater, and then here would be some art in that.  The most artistic aspect I've found is in setting creation, adventure design, and game design itself.  

This may sound odd, but have you tried Guitar Hero? Or other games outside the FPS genre.  Even the MMORPGs seem to me to be FPS with more fiddy bits and team play.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Haffrung

….

The more I read RPGnet and this site, the more relieved I am that my group was totally cut off from the mainstream RPG scene in the 90s. It seems the excesses of storytelling, railroad-style play left many RPGers scarred for life, and either incapable of understanding how story can be generated without pre-conceived plots, or acting as though it's some kind of recent revelation that you can even play that way.

Maybe my group is unusual, but the basics of how and why we play are:
• We're good friends. D&D is one of the ways we socialize with one another. Playing is a night with the boys away from the wife and kids. We drink beer.
• Story is generated organically by player decisions. The DM does not set out a plot.
• We're not really interested in crunch. The fewer rules to accomplish what we want to do, the better.
• High level of DM authority is preferred. Players don't want to work anything other than their PCs. Their sense of immersion is spoiled if they take a hand in shaping the wider world. They also don't go in for backstory or thematic premise. They make up a PC, and explore a totally new world.
• We all agree that the scenes we create in our imaginations while we play are way, way cooler than any movie or videogame. Those immersive experiences, where our interraction generates a vivid scene in each of our imaginations, is the number one reason we play. It's the dragon we chase.
So neither improv shared storytelling, nor MMORPGs came come anywhere close to satisfying our gaming wants. But maybe we're atypical.

Add me to the list.   I've been playing and GMing since 1978.  The only thing is that in the past few years I've considered my world's backstory in light of my studies of medieval and classical literature.  So I think I'm beginning to get the hang of the backstory concept for my world in terms of what *I* think is interesting.  Last time I checked my Players were saying stuff about my World that made me think I'm on the right track.   So I do think that there is something to Story, and it makes a difference in the overall quality.  I guess the way I'd put it to Old Geezer is this:  Lets say you have two games that are exactly the same rules, the same group of players, and the same style of playing, only in the first case the GM doesn't have much in the way of backstory and the Adventures don't really amount to much in that area, but they are fun, exciting and action packed.   In the second case you have the same fun, exciting and action packed adventures, but there's also, in addition to that, this really cool backstory.   For me, I'd prefer the second game.  Not because the first one isn't fun, but only because the second one has an additional aspect that's also cool and interesting.   So that's where I'm coming from on the Story aspect.   So yeah, I'm all for the above list, and have been playing that way for years and years quite happily.  

- Mark

Quote from: VBWyrdeSo I do think that there is something to Story, and it makes a difference in the overall quality.  I guess the way I'd put it to Old Geezer is this:  Lets say you have two games that are exactly the same rules, the same group of players, and the same style of playing, only in the first case the GM doesn't have much in the way of backstory and the Adventures don't really amount to much in that area, but they are fun, exciting and action packed.   In the second case you have the same fun, exciting and action packed adventures, but there's also, in addition to that, this really cool backstory.   For me, I'd prefer the second game.  Not because the first one isn't fun, but only because the second one has an additional aspect that's also cool and interesting.   So that's where I'm coming from on the Story aspect.   So yeah, I'm all for the above list, and have been playing that way for years and years quite happily.  

- Mark

Well, that looks like a good list to me too.

It is also not incompatible with the "Story is what the players do" mindset.

In all my years of fantasy gaming, I only played in one non-"sandbox" game; that is, a game where the GM had a "story" in mind before play (How ye Playerrse Saived ye Worlde).

I hated it.  So that's made me flinch ever since when somebody mentions "Story-driven" games.

The lack of precise definitions for most of the terms being casually bandied about doesn't help.

Quote from: Old GeezerWell, that looks like a good list to me too.

It is also not incompatible with the "Story is what the players do" mindset.

In all my years of fantasy gaming, I only played in one non-"sandbox" game; that is, a game where the GM had a "story" in mind before play (How ye Playerrse Saived ye Worlde).

I hated it.  So that's made me flinch ever since when somebody mentions "Story-driven" games.

The lack of precise definitions for most of the terms being casually bandied about doesn't help.

Ok, I see.  Well, I'm almost thinking that when you say "Story-Driven" you mean that the GM has a plot already in mind, as seems indicated by the title of the game you're referring to.   As a GM I don't prefabricate a plot for the Player-Characters.  What I do is establish a lot of BackStory in terms of what NPCs are up to, histories, political movements, etc.   Since the PCs are the Protagonists in my world, what they actually wind up doing is the main focus of the plot of any story that occurs in-game.   I use a Player-Driven-Story methodology, and I do not try to get the Players to "fit into" my prefabricated idea of what I think the Plot should be.  It's just that dancing around, behind, above and below the PCs is a World that is moving and changing in accordance with the motives and activities of NPCs whom I track via dice periodically.   So when the party goes to adventure at the haunted Castle Blackrock, and they have adventures there and discover the treasure, and find that the lord of that manner was long ago chained to a wall in a room in the dungeon and left to rot by his illegitimate step-son, Thraklar the Grim, and that there is a mystery surrounding that heir and his own heirs who have laid claim to the castle in recent memory... there is a backstory that ties to events that are in the world.  The world backstory simply inter-relates the 'sand-boxes' so that if you step back you'll see a larger political/historical/spiritual picture of the world that would make sense if you wrote it into a book, rather than simply being a series of unrelated 'sand-box' adventures.   To the Players the game play is the same either way.  They still romp and have a great time.  The difference is that after 20 games they can look at their adventures as something of a unified whole within the context of the world and say, "Oh yeah, when we killed Rayork's Guardian in the fifth adventure at Castle Blackrock, we unleashed the forces that resulted in the flooding of lower Brosliand forest with the goblin horde that invaded there in adventure nine.  Hmmm... so why would Rayork's Guardian have been preventing the goblins in the first place?"   And the answer to that question could lead logically, to adventure fourteen wherein the Players discover that Rayort's father was the Knight of the Black Tower, and things make sense to them, and also lead to their deciding to do this or that on the next adventure.   IF they so choose.   I'm not at all into GM-Driven Plot.   I do leave it to the Players to decide what they want to do.   I just provide enough backstory to make it possible for them to make sense of the World at large.   I think this works to the advantage of the game overall, at least for those Players who've enjoyed that aspect of my world to date.  

- Mark